Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #137
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, July 26 1996         Volume 01 : Number 137

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:15:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

this is not a name wrote:
>  
> 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.

Hence the rules are silent on the issue. R 215 stipulates that "game
custom" be used in such instances. Dr. McSpong attempted to perform
an illegal action by voting No on 8 consecutive proposals. CFCJ 104
established that that attempted performance of a prohibited action
was illegal. Hence the explicit game custom which must hold sway, and
should have been considered by tinan, given the "silence" of the 
rules.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 1:22:27 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: Olympics...

I'm going downtown to the Olympics tomorrow morning.  I won't be back
online until Sat morning.  So do worry if I don't post your proposals.

Wayne
(i don't have any tickets, just going to see all the stuff.  I do have
Baseball quarterfinal tix for Aug 1)

.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 02:14:11 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

>> 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.

CFCJ 101 and 104 happened before the rewrite of 592. Now, "a Protected 
action may not be performed" (592), and thus CnH's action did not occur 
and there is nothing to prosecute him for.

In addition, CFCJ's can only be used for violations of the RULES, not 
violations of the rules as applied through game custom, even explicit 
game custom.

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
Wisdom is like an open oven: The food is gone, but the heat remains.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:43:55 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

At 10:37 PM 7/25/96, Malenkai wrote:
>Even with a bigger pool of volunteers,
>
>ThinMan has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
>to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please note
>/dev/joe's A$20 Court Fee.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Criminal Judgement 107
>  Subject:  Illegal Witchhunt
>Initiator:  /dev/joe
>    Judge:  ThinMan
>
>Statement:
>  Player snowgod has violated R101.
>
>/dev/joe's Reasoning:
>  Snowgod called for judgement against the players who voted yes on
>proposal 974.
>
>Since the "blanket protection" fix of rule 592 (and probably before it as
>well), witchhunts may only be called by rule 729:
>
>  If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
>  or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
>  a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.
>
>Although the votes on proposals which have completed their voting periods
>must be released publicly, I do not believe that the votes themselves
>constitute public messages.  Thus, these players did not refer to the
>earth being round, nor did they imply that it may be the case, in a
>public message.
>
>Suggested Penalty:
>  7 days in Gaol.

Nowhere in R729 does it say that the player who is implying that the earth
is round must be the player sending the public message.  I quote from R729

>If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
>>  or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
>>  a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.

Nowhere in this message does it define who the sender of the message must
be. In fact, saying "If, in _a_ public message..." is the equivilent to
saying "If, in any public message" and the distribution of voting results
certainly qualifies as a public message.

Players x,y,z send in votes on P974 to wayne.

Wayne posts a public message in which players x,y,z imply that the earth is
round.

I call a witch hunt against players x, y, z in accordance with R729

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:49:01 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1052

At 11:39 PM 7/25/96, Malenkai wrote:
>[email-masked] wrote:
>>
>> Proposal 1052 - Thu Jul 25 14:11:46 EDT 1996
>> snowgod's blizzard
>> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
>>
>> {{ snowgod's score is changed to -50 . Any player with a negitive score,
>> other than snowgod, is set to 36}}
>
>Does this mean the *player* is set to 36 if the player has a negative
>score?
>

you know, much as I hate to admit it, I think it does.  I swear wayne is
adding typos into my proposals :)  Okay, well maybe not, but I'm not going
to retract this one anyhow.  I'm really curios myself what the effect of
setting a player to 36 would be :)

You can always pick out a ccreative writing major by his terrible spelling
and grammer :)

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:17:57 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Award For Wayne 

I have changed my mind and will vote for a Blue Cross for wayne, but I am
still hesitant about the precedence it sets.  I believe until such time as
the rules for Blue Crosses are rewritting to allow a Blue Cross to be
awarded in special cases of merit or service to ackanomic it is not really
a good idea to dish them out for something else.

However, I have been informed that a rule re-write is in the works which
would fix this problem, and it seems silly to deny Wayne a Blue Cross now,
when I will have no problem awarding him one in a couple of weeks.

I still would like to see a seperate medal for functional officers (I like
the gold star) but I will see what comes of this medals rewrite before I
propose it.

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:20:56 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: WitchHunt Madness 

Hey!

Glad so many of you will be joining me in the afterlife shortly.  It was
getting pretty lonely in here, but I think with all the new recruits things
should be pretty happy from here on out!  Pretty soon, I imagine, everyone
will be here in the afterlife with me (except for maybe this is not a name,
who will be very lonely when he discovers he has burned his 25 closest
friends at the stake).  If only he would commit a small act of heresy...

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:27:53 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Just in case... 

Just in case anyone is unclear of my position on the matter, I believe the
earth is the same shape as the great ackanomic gumball (which I note has
not been chewed recently and is probably all dried out and stale).

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:29:51 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Festival of Torkola

At 12:11 AM 7/26/96, Malenkai wrote:
>I note that when P 1012 was rejected, we had a Festival of Torkola. I
>hope everyone enjoyed it :)
>
>From R 797:
>
>>      5c) Upon rejection of 3 consecutive proposals due to Quorum not
>>being met, a Festival of 5 days will automatically start on the day
>>following the public disclosure of the 3rd failure...

Does this mean someone is going to CFCJ Wayne for distributing proposals?
I sure hope not.  Or possibly this message serves as the public disclosure
of the third failure and the festival has just begun?

We need some sort of statuate of limitations.

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:49:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1032

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, this is not a name wrote:

> I urge all players to vote against P1032, CFJ Casino.

whereupon he explained the dangers of corruption.

I would like to point out, in addition, that the clause which makes it
illegal for a Judge to reveal to another player how he or she might decide
a CFJ would make it difficult for a Judge to participate in a dicussion of
the issues involved in the CFJ.  Participation in such a discussion might
be very helpful and improve the quality of a decision in a complex CFJ. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 09:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, snowgod wrote:

> 
> Nowhere in R729 does it say that the player who is implying that the earth
> is round must be the player sending the public message.  I quote from R729
> 
> >If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
> >>  or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
> >>  a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.
> 
> Nowhere in this message does it define who the sender of the message must
> be. In fact, saying "If, in _a_ public message..." is the equivilent to
> saying "If, in any public message" and the distribution of voting results
> certainly qualifies as a public message.
> 
> Players x,y,z send in votes on P974 to wayne.
> 
> Wayne posts a public message in which players x,y,z imply that the earth is
> round.
> 
> I call a witch hunt against players x, y, z in accordance with R729
> 

I think a case could be made that, in your hypothetical situation, the
players x, y, and z, did not imply the Earth was not flat in a public
message, although they may have made that implication in their
non-public messsage to Wayne containing their votes.  Rather, Wayne
implied the Earth was not flat in a public message when he brought to our
attention (as he is required to do) that players x, y, and z, have made
that implication non-publicly.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:09:41 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 242 (cpf) 

>chess piece face has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
>to respond.

In all likelihood, cpf will not respond.  I will make my comments anyway,
for the benefit of whoever eventually judges this, or maybe just to see my
own post.

>Call For Judgement 242
>Subject: Last Party Chess Paradox, I promise
>Initiator: Malenkai
>Judge: chess piece face (selected Jul 25, 1996, 22:25h New York Time)
>
>
>Statement: 
>
>The first instance of the text, sequentially in the rules, that defines
>the Party Chess Piece named King cannot be determined with finality;
>thus the legality of actions that manipulate said King cannot be
>determined with finality.
>
>Malenkai's Reasoning:
>
>I quote from the infamous R 990, section 3.H:
> 
>> The King is defined in a seperate section of this rule.
>
>The Rules, by definition, are True. There is no such thing, in nomic, as
>a False rule. The best you can do is show how, amongst seemingly
>contradictory rules, that one has precedence, or failing that, show how a
>rule or rules is paradoxical, as in CFJ 184, or as in obvious cases such
>as "this statement is False".

[Remainder deleted]

I recommend that the judge consider the reasoning delivered by the judge
of CFJ 240.  That is not binding, but it shows a simple way in which R 990
is wholly consistent: R 990 states that the King is an exception to that
section of the rule that says, among other things, that the King is defined
elesewhere in the rule.  There are, in fact, only two other provisions of
that section that the King _could_ be an exception to, and CFJ 240 establishes
that the King is not an exception to one of those.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:17:35 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict 

/dev/joe 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.

I take it you haven't read Steve Gardner's paper, though I see that you
did put it on the Web page (thanks).  It was in response to similar
comments that I made myself that Kelly pointed me to Gardner in the first
place.

What it comes down to is that some actions can be taken no matter what the
rules say -- revealing information that is supposed to be kept secret for
instance -- and we cannot just pretend that such actions did not happen.
Other actions, however, can be easilly ignored as illegal.  Gardner expands
on that and other ideas in his paper, which I recommend to everyone as good
reading.

Whether and how we apply such ideas to Ackanomic is up to us, but to date we
seem to be taking a rather haphazard approach that doesn't seem to satisfy
anyone.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 14:10:22 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

>Hence the rules are silent on the issue. R 215 stipulates that "game
>custom" be used in such instances. Dr. McSpong attempted to perform
>an illegal action by voting No on 8 consecutive proposals. CFCJ 104
>established that that attempted performance of a prohibited action
>was illegal. Hence the explicit game custom which must hold sway, and
>should have been considered by tinan, given the "silence" of the 
>rules.

Again, that was before the rewrite of 592.

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teaches our
 children."                            --Dan Quayle
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 14:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, ThinMan wrote:

> 
> I take it you haven't read Steve Gardner's paper, though I see that you
> did put it on the Web page (thanks).  It was in response to similar
> comments that I made myself that Kelly pointed me to Gardner in the first
> place.
> 
> What it comes down to is that some actions can be taken no matter what the
> rules say -- revealing information that is supposed to be kept secret for
> instance -- and we cannot just pretend that such actions did not happen.
> Other actions, however, can be easilly ignored as illegal.  Gardner expands
> on that and other ideas in his paper, which I recommend to everyone as good
> reading.
> 

Thanks for the recommendation.  I just read it, and second your
recommendation.

> Whether and how we apply such ideas to Ackanomic is up to us, but to date we
> seem to be taking a rather haphazard approach that doesn't seem to satisfy
> anyone.
> 

Indeed.  I tend to want "illegal" things to happen, with their various
consequences, which is a ratherj Real Life approach, but perhaps
Ackanomic should be our chance to do things we can't in Real Life, and we
should really and truly do things over.  In any case, it would be nice if
this was a somewhat decided philosophy of the game, instead, as ThinMan
points out, a haphazard approach that might depend on how much sleep a
particular judge got last night :)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 16:09:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1052

> At 11:39 PM 7/25/96, Malenkai wrote:
> >> Proposal 1052 - Thu Jul 25 14:11:46 EDT 1996
> >> snowgod's blizzard
> >> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

> >> {{ snowgod's score is changed to -50 . Any player with a negitive score,
> >> other than snowgod, is set to 36}}

> >Does this mean the *player* is set to 36 if the player has a negative
> >score?

> you know, much as I hate to admit it, I think it does.  I swear wayne is
> adding typos into my proposals :)  Okay, well maybe not, but I'm not going
> to retract this one anyhow.  I'm really curios myself what the effect of
> setting a player to 36 would be :)

The thing that makes the most sense to me is that it would change the
player's name to 36.  However, since Rule 570 has precedence, this name
is not allowed, so the whole R1052 would do nothing except change snowgod's
score.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:55:30 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1052

At 4:09 PM 7/26/96, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>> At 11:39 PM 7/25/96, Malenkai wrote:
>> >> Proposal 1052 - Thu Jul 25 14:11:46 EDT 1996
>> >> snowgod's blizzard
>> >> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
>
>> >> {{ snowgod's score is changed to -50 . Any player with a negitive score,
>> >> other than snowgod, is set to 36}}
>
>> >Does this mean the *player* is set to 36 if the player has a negative
>> >score?
>
>> you know, much as I hate to admit it, I think it does.  I swear wayne is
>> adding typos into my proposals :)  Okay, well maybe not, but I'm not going
>> to retract this one anyhow.  I'm really curios myself what the effect of
>> setting a player to 36 would be :)
>
>The thing that makes the most sense to me is that it would change the
>player's name to 36.  However, since Rule 570 has precedence, this name
>is not allowed, so the whole R1052 would do nothing except change snowgod's
>score.

The other possibility is it wold set a "tag" on the players status
indicating he is 36 (in the same manner that Bascule is silly).  I am
beggining to think that is what would occur.  Since the rules require that
all players with negitive scores other than myself be set to 36 (it says
nothing about names or scores) than some new attribute that we hadn't
noticed yet is 36 and should be noted on the web page.

Of course I may be way of base here... Or I may have just created the cult
of the 36? :)

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:01:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retract P 1048

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1048 - Thu Jul 25 02:04:22 EDT 1996
> Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
>

I retract P 1048 and accept the 2 point penalty.

Malenkai
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> {{[game custom indicates the following rule changes are legal, I suppose]}}
> 
> Transmute R 108 to Mutable.
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Amend "Rule 108" Mutable/Immutable Inconsistencies, to read in full:
> 
>       Clauses or sections in Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some
> way with some Immutable rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are
> wholly void and without effect. The rest of the Mutable rule remains in
> effect, as if the inconsistent clause(s) have been stricken from it.
> 
>       They do not implicitly transmute immutable rules into mutable rules
> and at the same time amend them. Rule changes that transmute immutable
> rules into mutable rules will be effective only if they explicitly state
> their transmuting effect.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Transmute R 108 to Immutable.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:15:44 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

>I think a case could be made that, in your hypothetical situation, the
>players x, y, and z, did not imply the Earth was not flat in a public
>message, although they may have made that implication in their
>non-public messsage to Wayne containing their votes.  Rather, Wayne
>implied the Earth was not flat in a public message when he brought to our
>attention (as he is required to do) that players x, y, and z, have made
>that implication non-publicly.
>
>-mr cwm

Let's look at what we know from the rules...

Ackanomic Middle Ages tell us:

>> >If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
>> >>  or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
>> >>  a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.

R622/6 tells us what a public message is:

> A message is a public message if, and only if, it is distributed to
>     all registered Players and the subject line contains either
>     "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:".

Clearly then, the voting results entitled "Ackanomic: Prop 974 Fails" were
a public message.  Furthermore, in that public message players x, y, and z
stated an implication that the earth was not flat.  It is clear to me that
the implication was from said players rather than Wayne because he did not
originate the votes.

I believe players x, y, and z fulfilled all the criteria required to have a
witch hunt called on them:

1) an implication of the earth roundness by them appeared in a public message.

2) another player called the witch hunt

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: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 19:22:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 242 (cpf)

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> [Malenkai's utterly brialliant dissertation in CFJ 242 stating that the
>  rules are true, deleted]
> 
> I recommend that the judge consider the reasoning delivered by the judge
> of CFJ 240.  That is not binding, but it shows a simple way in which R 990
> is wholly consistent: [...]

My CFJ is about the text of the first rule that defines the King, not the
King, thus I find the reasoning of CFJ 240 does not shed light on the
issue. Its really about self-inconsistant rules.

I objectively believe this is the most solid paradox claim since CFJ 184 
and CFJ 227 (and believe me, we've had alot, and probably will, until the
scoring system is fixed). CFJ 227 was beautiful in the way it brought
us *close* to Godelesque themes and forced acknowledement of external
concepts.

Anyway,  CFJ 242 is equivelent to "this statement is false", inasmuch
as a true statement says a false thing. That should have been my
reasoning, instead I spent alot of bandwidth complying to the rather
exacting requirements of R 219, showing how the truth of <the king is
defined in this rule> leads to indeterminate legality of manipulating
the king.

Malenkai
Paradox surfing and counting witchhunt votes, and looking for a new
operating system

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 19:36:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 

[thread about the legality of snowgod's witchhunt call based on voting
results cut]

> Clearly then, the voting results entitled "Ackanomic: Prop 974 Fails" were
> a public message.  Furthermore, in that public message players x, y, and z
> stated an implication that the earth was not flat.  It is clear to me that
> the implication was from said players rather than Wayne because he did not
> originate the votes.

Synopsis: The beliefs may have been: I want my score to go up, so I will
vote a certain way on P 974, because my score going up is good.

I was going to call this CFCJ on snowgod, but /dev/joe beat me to it (and
we all know why, tallying witchhunt votes all night, plus and OS crash,
plus tyring to decipher those dang Party Chess rules :)).

Anyway, snowgod is making a leap of faith in his arguments. He assumes 
that because players x, y and z voted a particular way on P 974, they are
implying certain beliefs. This is a false leap of faith, and I believe 
that the burden of proof is on snowgod to show otherwise. For example, I
voted the way I did on P 974 to attempt to affect scoring changes that
I thought would benefit my position in the game. It had nothing to do 
with beliefs implied the the proposal's statement. Nor do the rules require
that you believe the proposal's statement, or even desire that it pass to
vote a certain way.

Until snowgod can show objective evidence that the way certain players
voted on P 974 imply certain beliefs they hold, the argument about
whether the message is public is irrelavent, and I ask the Judge to
consider the above reasoning while reaching a verdict.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 15:51:32 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

>Anyway, snowgod is making a leap of faith in his arguments. He assumes
>that because players x, y and z voted a particular way on P 974, they are
>implying certain beliefs. This is a false leap of faith, and I believe
>that the burden of proof is on snowgod to show otherwise. For example, I
>voted the way I did on P 974 to attempt to affect scoring changes that
>I thought would benefit my position in the game. It had nothing to do
>with beliefs implied the the proposal's statement. Nor do the rules require
>that you believe the proposal's statement, or even desire that it pass to
>vote a certain way.

If you want to get technical about it, we could all be witches, for I doubt
the is even one of us who sincerly believes that the earth is flat.  I too
partake in strategic voting, and don't always like what I vote for, but
that doesn't affect the legality of my witchhunt.  The sole effect of that
would be in the witch hunt votes.  A player can make up their own mind
about the intentions of the players when casting their votes.  That is
after all why we have a witch hunt voting process instead of instant
damnation.

>Until snowgod can show objective evidence that the way certain players
>voted on P 974 imply certain beliefs they hold, the argument about
>whether the message is public is irrelavent, and I ask the Judge to
>consider the above reasoning while reaching a verdict.

Once again, a players intention when casting the vote would be the deciding
factor in with hunt votes, but should not effect this CFCJ.  _I believed_
when I called for these witchunts that the players had implied a belief in
the flatness of the earth.  That is what is required for a with hunt.

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: Fri, 26 Jul 96 19:57:56 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

>If you want to get technical about it, we could all be witches, for I doubt
>the is even one of us who sincerly believes that the earth is flat.

You MUST be joking. Everyone in Ackanomic sincerely believes the earth is 
flat and knows that it is flat. I certainly do.

Adolescent experimentation with evil is the only explanation I can come 
up with for why some people express heresy.

               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            "I mean, it's a great story.
      [email-masked]           It's got some great things in it.
  *                      *       I mean, there's something like eight
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/    violent deaths."
                                               --Mel Gibson on Hamlet

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:10:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

Phil Ackley wrote:

> If you want to get technical about it, we could all be witches, for I
> doubt the is even one of us who sincerly believes that the earth is flat.

It is Ackanomic Truth that the earth is flat. R 729 says so, and no other
rule contradicts this and claims precedence. (If I was not the Assistant
Tabulator, I would call a witchhunt on the above statement, BTW :)).

> _I believed_ when I called for these witchunts that the players had
> implied a belief in the flatness of the earth.  That is what is required
> for a with hunt.

snowgod attempts to bamboozle the Judge with the above. I quote from R 729:

> If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round, or
> implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for a
> Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so. 

According to this excerpt from R 729, snowgod's beliefs are *not* relavent,
and thus his statement, quoted above, is False. What the *other* player
states or implies is all that is relavent for establishing the 
permissability of snowgod's witchhunt. My previous argument about intentions
on voting is rock-solid in this regard. Failing that, /dev/joe's arguments
in the reasoning are rock-solid as well. 

I suggest snowgod prepare for the cold, gray dank of the Ackanomic Gaol;
the only thing that will save him is reasoning similar to CFCJ 108. I do
not believe that issue has been decided with finality, however...

The Judge will not be bamboozled by snowgod's latest grasping at straws.

Malenkai
Get a Hangman, not a Gaoler

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 20:20:17 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

>I suggest snowgod prepare for the cold, gray dank of the Ackanomic Gaol;
>the only thing that will save him is reasoning similar to CFCJ 108. I do
>not believe that issue has been decided with finality, however...

Take a look at CFCJ 103. Similar reasoning applies to witchhunts; even if 
it's not absolutely true and the witchhunt fails, a witchhunt provides a 
mechanism for determining whether heresy has been committed.

>Call For Criminal Judgement 103 - 
>Subject: (none yet)
>Initiator: snowgod
>Judge: this is not a name (selected at 1358h CDT on 4 June 1996)
>Judgement: False
>Statement: 
>
>       Player The Great Old One hase violated R101 
>
>Initiator's comments: 
>
>       The Great Old One declared that he had one the
>       game in a message titled "Ackanomic: I win". He
>       claimed that the game is no longer playable due to
>       R663. 
>
>       R219 (winning by paradox) states that if the rules
>       are changed so that further play is impossible the
>       player may be declared the winner after a CFJ
>       deciding the fact. So long as we can pass
>       resolutions we are still playing the game. In
>       addition CSRs can still be issued, as well as a call
>       for a constitutional convention. I content that The
>       Great Old One knew that further play was
>       possible, though difficult, and yet submitted a
>       CFJ to determine if he was the winner. Therefore
>       he violated R219 and in doing so violated R101. 
>
>Suggested Penalty: 
>
>       A sentence in the Gaol of 8 days for The Great
>       Old One. 
>
>Judge's comments: 
>
>       Reasoning: 
>
>       Rule 219 states that in the case of a paradox a
>       player may call for judgement. snowgod claims in
>       his complaint that "The Great Old One knew that
>       further play was possible, though difficult, and
>       yet submitted a CFJ to determine if he was the
>       winner," and thus he willfully violated rule 101
>       by making his claim of a paradox win. 
>
>       snowgod's argument rests on two premises: 
>
>       - that it is illegal to call a CFJ with a statement that
>       one knows to be untrue; and 
>
>       - that The Great Old One knew that his CFJ
>       statement was false. 
>
>       The first premise is clearly untrue. I could easily
>       CFJ statements that I believed or knew to be
>       untrue; the major purpose of a CFJ is to establish
>       game custom formally. Many players have called
>       CFJs that they hoped would be judged false in
>       order to clarify a point of debate. There is no
>       provision in the rules for penalizing authors of
>       false CFJs. Apparently, snowgod's argument is
>       that R219 only permits paradox claims in the
>       event that they are true. Upon examination of the
>       ruleset, I see no basis, whether in R219 or
>       elsewhere, to assume that calling a CFJ on a
>       paradox win that one knows to be invalid is any
>       less valid than calling an invalid CFJ. In light of
>       the text and spirit of the rule set, I find that claim
>       invalid. 
>
>       With regard to snowgod's second point, there is
>       no evidence to suggest that The Great Old One
>       knew his CFJ statement was false. It is entirely
>       possible that he believed and continues to believe
>       that he should rightly win by paradox because
>       further rule-changing is impossible according to
>       his view of the situation. Perhaps at the time The
>       Great Old One had not read the rules regarding
>       Constitutional Conventions, Gadgets, and other
>       objects with potential powers to change rules.
>       Perhaps he believes that a Nomic game is
>       pointless without the ability to change the rules.
>       The mere fact that snowgod evidently disagrees
>       with The Great Old One is not evidence that The
>       Great Old One knows that he is wrong. 
>
>       In addition, I find it necessary to add to
>       snowgod's complaint by noting that the belief that
>       further play is impossible is not the only basis for
>       a paradox win. To quote rule 219: "If the rules are
>       changed so that further play is impossible, or if
>       the legality of some action cannot be determined
>       with finality, or if some action appears equally
>       legal and illegal, [....] 
>
>       I agree with snowgod that The Great Old One's
>       CFJ is not true, and I am sorely tempted to return
>       true on this CFCJ and put The Great Old One into
>       Gaol for enough time to allow R663 to be
>       modified. But this is not in keeping with the
>       ideals of a Nomic, which are to follow the rules
>       strictly and look for solutions within the rules.
>       Upon examination of snowgod's arguments, I
>       find them to be invalid. I rule false on this CFCJ. 

- --      Mike Epstein            "I stopped believing in Santa Claus when
      [email-masked]           I was six. Mother took me to see him in 
  *                      *       a department store and he asked for my
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/    autograph."      --Shirley Temple Black

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:32:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >I suggest snowgod prepare for the cold, gray dank of the Ackanomic Gaol;
> >the only thing that will save him is reasoning similar to CFCJ 108. I do
> >not believe that issue has been decided with finality, however...
> 
> Take a look at CFCJ 103. Similar reasoning applies to witchhunts; even if
> it's not absolutely true and the witchhunt fails, a witchhunt provides a
> mechanism for determining whether heresy has been committed.
> 

First I note the same judge judged CFCJ 103, CFCJ 108, and the above,
so you are agreeing with yourself.

More importantly, I note that tinan's argument quoted above is a "shift
fallacy". The analagous, and legal, thing for snowgod to do would have
been to call a *CFJ* that calling a witchhunt was permissable.

We are not questioning whether or not heresy has been comitted, but whether
or not it was permissable for snowgod to initiate a process defined in
the rules called a witchhunt. The votes on a witchhunt do not validate
the legality of calling that witchhunt, just as the votes on a proposal
will not validate the legality of distributing that proposal.

Your argument is analoguous to saying that if a proposal is distributed
during a Festival, and people vote on it, its distribution was legal.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:09:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Discuss CFCJs (was CFCJ 108)

John Bollinger wrote:

> I take it you haven't read Steve Gardner's paper, though I see that you
> did put it on the Web page (thanks).  It was in response to similar
> comments that I made myself that Kelly pointed me to Gardner in the first
> place. 
> What it comes down to is that some actions can be taken no matter what the
> rules say -- revealing information that is supposed to be kept secret for
> instance -- and we cannot just pretend that such actions did not happen.
> Other actions, however, can be easilly ignored as illegal.  Gardner expands
> on that and other ideas in his paper, which I recommend to everyone as good
> reading.

> Whether and how we apply such ideas to Ackanomic is up to us, but to date
> we seem to be taking a rather haphazard approach that doesn't seem to
> satisfy anyone.

I also have read it and endorse reading it as well, especially for anyone 
interested in CFCJ 107 and 108. The following by me is very long. As is 
Steve's essay.  I would appreciate people reading both if they are 
interested in the course Acka takes in this regard.  This is an issue that
is very dear to me.

I believe the final resolution of these CFJs will establish the game
custom as to how we proceed regarding breaking of the rules.

It appears, however, that Steve's essay is copyrighted, so I will not be
able to quote it directly.  I will refer to his numbers (1) to (5).  The
essay is at http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/gardner.txt

It seems like tinan's CFCJ 108 argument boils down to an argument
analogous to (1) in Steve's essay, namely, in the absence of rules to
the contrary, an illegal move is retracted, and is considered to never
have been made.  We are not disputing the illegality of CnH's witchhunts
(and snowgod's :)), only whether they have occurred so that it can be
said with finality that CnH broke R 101, and thus suffer CFCJ penalties.

tinan argues that Protection has something to do with this; I disagree 
that is does, I believe we would be in the same boat before Protection,
with the possible exception that the witchhunt may have been *legal* without 
protection, but that is not relavent here.

I note that Steve uses (1) as custom for simple games, such as tic-tac-toe.

My argument is *either* that the rules are silent on whether (1), (2),
or (3) from Steve's essay should hold sway, or that R 710 "Criminal
Justice" is a meta-rule of form (2).  No rule states it is a meta rule
similar to any of the above categories, and R 710 is up to interpretation.

I interpret that (2) holds sway, namely the move is retracted, and a game
penalty may be imposed, even though the move never really occurred.  I
also interpret R 710 this way, but I wrote R 710, so my interpretation
cannot be objective.  I believe custom demands this interpretation, however.

I claim the legality of my interpretation from the game custom of CFCJ 104
establishing interpretation (2).  Dr McSpong broke the rules by voting No
8 times in a row.  If tinan's reasoning (1) held sway, he could not have
been penalized, yet he was; he was put in the Gaol for 3 days, indicating
custom (2).  I note that his No vote was "retracted" inasmuch as I check
all proposal voting results to see if illegal no votes would have had an
effect if they were not no's, and insist that they be changed if they
would have.  I do not, however, check if they would have an effect on the
score of the player, due to time limitations only.  In all honesty, there
haven't been any yet, but this still does not support (1), it may support
(5) from Steve's essay, which would still allow criminal justice per (2).  

Another example of (2) is from American football.  If a team scores a 
touchdown, but breaks the rules in so doing, the move to score the 
touchdown is deemed never to have occurred, and the team incurs a game
penalty such as 5 or 10 yards.  There is an effect, however, inasmuch as 
time is irrevokably lost from the game clock, that cannot be retracted.

This is analogous to what happened with the illegal witchhunts, they ran
time off my personal clock by distracting me while I was trying to win the
game by writing CFJ 242, because the rules *required* me to deal with
them in my capacity as Assistant Tabulator, even though they "didn't
exist". 

Even though they didn't happen legally, they may have compromised my
ability to win the game, so how can you argue that they "never happened"?

Given all that, I believe that the verdict on CFCJ 108 was reached in
error, more so from the game custom argument of CFCJ 104 than the 
irretractibility of time lost.  The latter argument is presented to support
my personal belief that (2) style custom is appropriate for complicated
games.

I also believe that if we are not playing under (2) from Steve's essay,
we *should* be (or (5) maybe).  Penalization should be allowed, but the
move deemed never to have occurred.  I find this is more fun (even trying
to through people in Gaol), and the Gaol was designed to be fun; I wrote
some loopholes in, as Kelly Martin has pointed out.  Furthermore, serious
infractions should have serious penalties, when appropriate.  People should
not feel they may break the rules with no possible penalty.  I note that
breaking some rules have specific penalties already, Criminal Justice was
an attempt to wrap penalties around all the rules that don't, and thus is
a meta-rule (by intent).

I was all prepared to come home tonight and appeal CFCJ 108 based on my
belief that is was reached in error (I actually think about this stuff
at work, and quote nomic rules in otherwise boring meetings :)).  I 
read mr cwm's statement that we are free to take any path we want in this
regard, it might be fun to deviate from the real world.  This also seems
to allow (1) above.

Thus CFCJ 107 and 108 will "evolve" custom in this regard.  If 107 comes
back the same way 108 did, that will indicate an evolution away from
(2) back to (1).  If it comes back indicating (2), CFCJ 108 has no choice
but to be appealed.

If we go the route of (1) then, I will rewrite R 710 as a meta-rule to
get us to (2) by rule, because I think that is cooler, and the rewrite
will let the voters, not the courts, decide our course with finality in
this regard.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #137
*******************************