Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #147
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, July 31 1996       Volume 01 : Number 147

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:52:26 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Ambassador's Rant 

Sitting in my Gaol cell, I realize that I have some important information
to share with the citizens of ackanomic.  However, issuing a report might
just be illegal for me right now, and heaven knows that luxurious as this
gaol cell is (with free tomatos even!) I still don't want to spend more
time here than I have too.

So I lean out the window, in a sort of non-official manner, and then in a
way that doesn't really require acting in any capacity as a player I
scream:

"Internomic Play has Started!!!"

"The members are:

AckaNomic, liaison snowgod
Agora, liaison Andre
Thring, liaison Luke
Imperial Nomic 14, liaison Pascal"

and then, as the crowd gathers around, I pull out a scroll, and at the top
of my lungs read the following ruleset out loud, and it might be noted that
to tinan's dismay, the ruleset contains no references to the earth or it's
shape.

"Immutable Rules

101.  All member nomics must always abide by all Internomic rules then
      in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.  At the
      start of the first game, rules 101-114 are immutable, and rules
      201-216 are mutable.  Subsequently, the number of a rule does not
      indicate that rule's mutability.

102.  A nomic is a game in which the rules are changeable by those who
      play it.  The entities which play this nomic, aka "Internomic",
      are themselves nomics, aka "member nomics".  Every member nomic
      shall be either a voting member or a nonvoting member.  References
      in this ruleset to "nomics" or "members" shall mean member nomics,
      and shall include both voting and nonvoting members, unless
      otherwise noted.  References in the ruleset to "rules" shall mean
      Internomic rules, unless otherwise noted.

103.  At any time, there shall be exactly one moderator, who must be a
      player of at least one member nomic.  The moderator may not
      resign.  If the moderator is no longer a player in any member
      nomic, e must name a successor who is.  Once this is done, the
      successor replaces the moderator.

104.  The moderator for the first game shall be Andre.

105.  Every member nomic shall have a liaison at all times.  The liaison
      must be an entity registered as a player of that nomic.

106.  A rule change is the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable
      rule, or the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable
      rule or vice versa.

107.  Every proposal shall be numbered by the moderator.  The numbers
      shall begin with 301, and each proposal shall receive the next
      successive integer.

108.  Every proposal shall be communicated to all voting members before
      it is voted on.  If adopted, it shall take effect in the form in
      which it was voted on.

109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
      they receive the required number of votes.

110.  A proposal containing a transmutation rule change is adopted if
      and only if all votes on that proposal are in favor.
      Transmutation may not be implied, but must be stated explicitly.

111.  An immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.  If
      there is a conflict between the two, the mutable rule is entirely
      void.

112.  A member nomic may always withdraw from Internomic.

113.  It must never become completely impermissible to change rules.

114.  Whatever is not forbidden is allowed, except that changing the
      rules is only permitted when another rule allows it.

Mutable rules

201.  All members begin with 0 points.

202.  The game ends when a nomic achieves 100 points.  The winner is the
      first nomic to do so.  The liaison from that nomic becomes
      moderator, and all scores are reset to 0.  A new game is then
      begun, with all rules and proposals retaining the status they had
      at the end of the game.  The nomic that won must appoint a new
      liaison.

203.  A proposal is made by submitting it to the moderator.  All members
      may make proposals.  Upon receiving the proposal, the moderator
      shall assign it a number and distribute it to all nomics.

204.  Every proposal shall contain exactly one rule change.

205.  The voting period for a proposal shall be four weeks, beginning at
      the time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics.

206.  Each voting member may vote exactly once per proposal.  Nonvoting
      members may not vote.

207.  Voting members may vote either for or against any proposal by
      sending their vote to the moderator by the end of the voting period
      on that proposal.  The moderator may not reveal any votes until the
      end of the voting period.  Any voting member who does not vote has
      abstained.

208.  At the end of the voting period of a proposal, the moderator shall
      reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal.  If required, the
      moderator should indicate eir consent (or lack thereof) at this
      time.  If the moderator does not indicate eir opinion, it shall be
      assumed that e consents.

209.  A proposal passes if and only if all votes cast on it are in
      favor.

210.  A rule change takes effect at the moment the proposal containing
      it is adopted.  The rule which is changed takes the number of the
      proposal containing the rule change.

211.  If two or more rules conflict, the rule with the lower number
      takes precedence.

212.  Any nomic may submit a statement for judgement to the moderator.
      Upon receipt of such a statement, the moderator must randomly
      select a member to judge the statement.  The moderator must then
      distribute the statement and the identity of the judge to all
      member nomics.

213.  A nomic which has been selected to judge must deliver judgement
      within two weeks by sending its judgement to the moderator, who
      must then distribute the judgement to all members.  A legal
      judgement is either "true" or "false", and must be in accordance
      with the rules.

214.  All business to be conducted with a member nomic shall be
      conducted with the liaison to that nomic.  No entity may be
      liaison to more than one member nomic.

215.  The voting members in this Nomic are: AckaNomic, Agora, Thring and
      Imperial Nomic 14. There are no nonvoting members."

With that, I clam up, and go back to notching one of the Gaols infinite
number of walls.

snowgod

Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Going To Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - 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: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:53:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunts

The following witchhunts have been called:

/dev/joe is an alledged heretic, called by this is not a name
this is not a name is an alledged heretic, called by ThinMan

The voting will end 3 days from the date of this post.
Players in Gaol may not vote.

Please include Witchhunt in your subject line.
Please name your witch, and don't say "all" witches, more witchhunts may
be called...

Witchfinder General

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:05:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt

I am calling for a witchhunt on this is not a name.  I realise ThinMan
has done already so, but I don't see how R 729 prevents multiple witchhunt
calls.

BURN THE WITCH TWICE!!

I think were all tired of his unending, unabated hypocracy about the
shape of the earth.  Who has called virtually every witchhunt in this
game, with holier than thou language? 

BURN THE WITCH TWICE !!

Malenkai
PS, does the Underworld Party take bribes for witchhunt votes?
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Witchfinder General, let this message serve as announcement of the
start of this Witchhunt as well. Votes will be taken for 3 days.

Witchfinder General

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:34:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 239 Appeal Verdict

Appeal of CFJ 239 was judged FALSE, upholding the original verdict.
Jul 30 19:34 EDT: -20 Malenkai: Frivilous appeal of CFJ 239

All the material is here, with the Court's reasoning first.

Boy, not a good day :(. 2 wins denied and a public misquote. The only
thing that can save me is the smell of burning heretic flesh. 

BURN THE WITCH TWICE !!

I do note that this verdict establishes the falseness of play past the
beginning stages of Party Chess being indetermine.  Perhaps the Acting
Chess-Umpire, after all these verdicts, should issue another statement
about the playability of Party Chess, or face the Gaol for neglect of
duty :) I'm not sure we can just ignore these rules, even if they don't
make sense. What fun would that be?

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

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court finds that R994 is not, in fact, a PCPD rule, despite its many
similarities, as it fails the requirement (R990-3F) that a PCPD rule
define a material value for a piece.  Since the King is not defined by a
PCPD rule, and R991-2B requires that the additional pieces selected by the
players be defined by PCPD rules, players may not select Kings, resolving
the question that was claimed to have hung the game. Note that R990-5 and
R990-3H exempt the PartyChessPiece King from the requirement that pieces
be defined by PCPD rules.  That exemption has no bearing on the the
requirement in R991-2B that additional pieces selected by players be
defined by PCPD rules.

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

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 tothe 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 anexception, 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: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:39:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 109 Verdict

CFCJ 109 has been judged INVALID. No penalties are assessed.

Clerk of the Courts.

Call for Criminal Judgement 109
  Subject:  CFJ 113 revisited
Initiator:  Robert Sevin
    Judge:  Brinjal (selected Mon, Jul 29, 1996, 19:30 New York Time)

Statement:

Player Robert Sevin has broken, and is breaking by writing this very CFCJ,
Rule 101.

Reasoning:

Similar to the offense outlined in CFCJ 106, Robert Sevin has manipulated an
extra-nomic entity that is regulated by Rule 706. In CFCJ 106 it was
determined that by drinking Coca-Cola, Malenkai was violating it's regulated
status under Rule 115 and Rule 706. Similarly, in my judgement of CFCJ 106 I
spoke about Coca-Cola. As it is regulated, and nowhere in the rules is it
permitted for my to speak of this regulated object, I have violated the
rules. In fact, every mention of the regulated object in the statement of
this CFCJ is another violation of the rules. CFJ 113 set the precedent of
Rule 115 regulating the acceptable uses of entities. Therefore this is the
logical, although absurd, conclusion to that CFJ. I suggest that before more
people fall victim to this dread violation that some legislation is passed
clearing up the relationship between Rule 115, CFJ 113, and regulated
entities.

Suggested Penalty: 15 days in Gaol and a score deduction of 3 points.

Brinjal's Reasoning:

Rule 710 says that the statement of a CFCJ must be "Player X has
violated R101". It makes no allowance for variations on this form
of words. This CFCJ is thus invalid. The rules for CFJs (which I
must follow except where they are contradicted by the CFCJ rules)
now allow for a verdict of INVALID in such circumstances. That, in
my opinion, is the correct verdict in this case.

In the absence of a TRUE verdict, there is no penalty to the defendant.

[Brinjal's]Comment:

The rule Coke Is It was repealed before this CFCJ was made.  The
initiators arguments therefore do not stand up in their present form.
There is however an important point behind this CFCJ, raising arguments
which will have to be addressed eventually. It is not my business to
rehearse those arguments here, though.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 15:51:27 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Report from the Gaol 

After countless hours of starting at the walls, I became rather bored.
Even the smell of Witchflesh burning outside wasn't enought to keep me
awake (note: If I wasn't in Gaol I would vote to burn the witch TWICE!), so
I began wandering my cell, looking for something that I had not previously
noticed.

Imagine my surprise when I cam across the folowing, carved into the wall:

Solitaire Nomic 1.0

Initial Ruleset.
- -------------------

1. Two classes of Rules.
There shall be two classes of rules: immutable and mutable.
Immutable rules shall have numbers less than 20 and greater
than 0; mutable rules shall have numbers 20 or greater.
Immutable rules shall not be subject to mutation, death or
division.

2. Objective.
The goal of this game is to eliminate all rules except this one from the
ruleset.  The player wins if and only if the goal is achieved.

3. Life Span.
All mutable rules shall have a life span of 8 turns from the time
of their creation or transmutation to a mutable rule before they are subject
to death except where they gain extra life span by subsuming another rule.
A mutable rule's current life span is the time remaining until its
death. A mutable rule's life span may never exceed 8 turns.

4. Rule Changes
Rules may not be changed, except as stated by the immutable rules.

5. Death
Death is the process of a mutable rule being removed from the ruleset.

6. Actions.
Each turn the player may perform exactly one action on exactly one rule.
An "action" is one of the rule changes described in the immutable rules.
Should there be less than 2 mutable rules remaining then the next action
performed must be to divide, if "division" is defined in the immutable rules.

7. Transmutation
Transmutation is the process of renumbering an immutable rule. The
transmuted rule loses its old rule number, and gains a number greater
than or equal to twenty, which is not the number of an already
existing rule. An immutable rule cannot be transmuted if there exists
another immutable rule with a greater number.

8. Mutation.
Mutation is the process where the player replaces up to 4
consecutive words or 2 non-consecutive words in a mutable rule with from
zero to 8 other words.  The rule number is part of the text of an rule,
and hence it may be mutated; however the number may not be mutated to an
already existing number or an illegal number.

9. Subsumption
Subsumption is the process of a mutable rule appending the text of
another mutable rule to its own text. The mutable rule that has been
subsumed is subject to death. A mutable rule which subsumes another
mutable rule gains one half (in turns; integer portions are rounded down)
of the other mutable rule's remaining life span.

10. Division
Division is the process of duplicating an rule and prepending a new
number to the duplicate. The number prepended may not be an already
existing number. Both the rule and its duplicate (if mutable) are given
a life span equal to half the rule's life span before it divided, plus four
turns.

11. Precedence.
Lower number rules always take precedence over higher number rules,
without exception.

12. Rule Numbers.
Rule numbers must be integers greater than 0. A rule number is always
at the start of an rule and is terminated with a full stop followed by a
space.

1001. Scoring.
The player shall gain 10 points by performing an action.

1002. Permissibility of the Unprohibited.
Whatever is not regulated or prohibited by these rules is permitted.

So I sit down, and begin playing nomic all by myself...

snowgod
it's lonely in Gaol

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:55:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Report from the Gaol

Phil Ackley wrote:
 
> So I sit down, and begin playing nomic all by myself...
> 
> snowgod
> it's lonely in Gaol

Pass a rule to join InterNomic :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 20:23:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor: Making a gadget

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I am building a gadget.  I have choosen the blueprint fro The Reall Big
> Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really from my collection, and it is
> now being made.  The process will take three days.  Possibly longer
> depending on what happens while I am in the Gaol.
> 

It looks like it will be done Fri, Aug 09, 06:04 EDT.  snowgod may want
to check my math, I've screw up this kind of stuff all the time, as we 
know :(

snowgod began making the gadget at 06:04 7/30, and was to go in the Gaol
at 14:04 or therabouts. Thus the *starting* of it was legal. R 786 
(amended by P 1023), requires the Inventor spend at least 3 days building.
snowgod may not build while in Gaol, so the building will complete when
he is out. Note that the rules appear silent on whether gaps of this sort
are permitted, I see no reason that they are not.

R 786:
         (c) building the gadget. This task is completed when the Inventor
         has spent at least three days building, and the Blueprint defining
         the type of Gadget to be made has existed for at least one
         week. The Gadget is created at the end of this time. It has no
         owner.

R 709:
         If a player is in the Gaol, they may perform no game actions except 
         those on the following numbered list...

Buliding a gadget is not on the list.

Malenkai
Assistant Acting Gaoler

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 96 21:05:09 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Official: Witchhunt

>Hmmm.  You "typed the wrong word without thinking," did you?  You dig 
>yourself
>in deeper the more you try to squirm away!  The word you typed was 
>undoubtedly
>the wrong one, as it will get you burned, but if that is what you type when
>you don't think then it must indicate your true belief!  And I did read your
>message, but let's look at it again:

I did this once a few days ago. I typed votes when I meant points in the 
statement of a CFJ on the Brass Monkey. It's completely innocent. If I 
believed that the earth was round, I'd proclaim it from the highest 
building in Ackanomia! But I don't.

- --      Mike Epstein            "2 is not equal to 3, 
      [email-masked]           not even for large values of 2."
  *                      *                       --Grabel's Law
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 96 21:06:01 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Witchhunt

>Writing proposals with song titles or popular lines from songs as their
>titles is one of the "fun" ways I've been playing the game.  There is only
>one other TMBG reference, though: Prosthetic Foreheads and the other things
>in that rule.

What about the Rock to Wind a String Around? :)

- --      Mike Epstein           "When one door closes another door opens;
      [email-masked]          but we so often look so long and so
  *                      *      regretfully upon the closed door, that
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   we do not see the ones which open for us."
                                                 --Alexander Graham Bell

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 96 21:08:04 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt

>I am calling for a witchhunt on this is not a name.  I realise ThinMan
>has done already so, but I don't see how R 729 prevents multiple witchhunt
>calls.
>
>BURN THE WITCH TWICE!!
>
>I think were all tired of his unending, unabated hypocracy about the
>shape of the earth.  Who has called virtually every witchhunt in this
>game, with holier than thou language? 
>
>BURN THE WITCH TWICE !!

This should be ignored. You can't call two witchhunts on the same 
offense. If you don't retract it, I'll call a CFCJ.

- --      Mike Epstein            
      [email-masked]          Don't have a battle of wits
  *                      *      with an unarmed opponent.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:39:50 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1057

> Proposal 1057 - Tue Jul 30 14:05:07 EDT 1996
> Name Game
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

So "!  " and ".  " are still to be legal names then!?
Not to mention "   ".

Brinjal.
(Pondering a name change)

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:18:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt

this is not a name wrote:
> 

> This should be ignored. You can't call two witchhunts on the same
> offense. If you don't retract it, I'll call a CFCJ.

The rules do not permit retraction of witchhunts, nor do they prohibit
calling more than one on the same player.

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. 

My actions are legal by the above. I am "another player", and you implied
what "this may be the case".  I am perfectly within my rights here.

You could be a better sport about this. I sure was when my mailbox was
being overrun the other night by you and snowgod :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 02:33:00 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Witchhunt

 [tinan tells us the earth is round...]

I never thought I would hear myself say this but... BURN THE WITCH!!!

Brinjal.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 22:55:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Bronze Torches

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Here are the voting results for : 1033
>   Proposal 1033 - Tue Jul 23 00:49:26 EDT 1996
>   Bronze Torch
>   Proposal Passes 
> Bronze Torches are awarded as a recognition of merit to those
> players who have shown us the light through the stickiest of rule
> interpretation quagmires. 

It is my pleasure to award Justice mr cwm and Justice Bascule a Bronze
Torch each, for unraveling the judicial quagmire that Ackanomic can
become.

mr cwm has delivered 9 verdicts as a Judge, and 6 while sitting on the
Supreme Court. His first one goes back to CFJ 126.  Anyone remember what
that was?  Probably the R 416 wars.

Bascule has delivered 14 verdicts as a Justice, and 2 more as a Judge.
He's had to deal with all the paradox surfing lately.

Please join the parade and revelry as these earned awards are bestowed.

Malenkai
ProConsul
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other notes: 

1) pTang was a Supreme Court Justice on CFJ 211 and CFJ 217

2) All the tabulation can be found off the bottom of the CotC page on
wilma, or at http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~malenkai/torch.html

3) I tabluate these when a verdict goes "off board", ie, can no longer
be appealed under the current rules.

4) I figured I'd do this as an unofficial function of the CotC. /dev/joe
has a mountain of work, and I unfortunately made more today over that
Festival business :(

5) I note that I also have a Bronze Torch, due to what /dev/joe is calling
"Malenkai's Loophole". /dev/joe has come up for a fix in the instance case
(qv Blue Cross RFC), but a fix in the general case has been eluding me 
for some time.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 00:17:40 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Chess

Anyone who wishes to be a spectator at Party Chess should e-mail me to be 
added to the list.

tinan
Acting Chess-Umpire

- --      Mike Epstein            "It's like the Roman Empire. Wasn't
      [email-masked]           everybody running around just
  *                      *       covered with syphilis? And then it was
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/    destroyed by the volcano."
                                                         --Joan Collins

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:25:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 246 (Brinjal)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 246
Subject: Party Chess
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Brinjal (selected Jul 31, 1996, 00:24h New York Time)

Statement:

Party Chess is unplayable as of the date of this CFJ, and therefore
the Chess-Umpire or Acting Chess-Umpire is absolved of all duties 
regarding the game of Party Chess until such time as its rules are
modified.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

There's been some private debate as to the duties of the Acting 
Chess-Umpire.  This seems like a reasonable way to resovle the situation.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #147
*******************************