Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #148
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Thursday, August 1 1996       Volume 01 : Number 148

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 01:59:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 244 (Malenkai)

Mellon Failed to respond to this CFJ.

It has been reassigned to Malenaki has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 244
Subject: That Funky Monkey
Initiator: this is not a name
    Judge: Mellon (selected Jul 28, 1996, 01:00h New York Time)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected Jul 31, 1996, 02:00h New York Time)

Statement:

When Rule 824 is invoked, each particular player's score only changes by
5 points, no matter how many of the 10 proposals were written by that
player.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Rule 824 reads:

>     If 10 consecutive proposals are accepted, the Brass Monkey shall
>     climb the tallest building in Acka Land and proclaim --
>     "The authors of the 10 consecutive proposals that were accepted
>     shall be awarded 5 bonus points."
>     After this proclamation, the score keeper shall increment the
>     appropriate scores by 5 points.

The rule does not state specifically whether my position is correct or
not. But it implies that it is correct. If player X wrote several of the
proposals, e is still only an author of them once and should only receive
5 points once.

In addition, relevant to the part of the rule beginning "After this
proclamation," the Scorekeeper is required to increment the appropriate
scores by 5 points. If player X wrote 3 proposals, e would be entitled to
15 points if my reasoning were incorrect. But it is stated in the rule
that the Scorekeeper is to increment that player's score by 5 points and
5 points only.

If this CFJ is judged true, the following score changes must be made as a
correction:
- -5  pTang1001001sos
- -5  /dev/joe
- -15 Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:43:06 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: nomicbot 

#current

snowgod

Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the 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: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Patent Infringement

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I was thinking about Malenkai's Bronze Torch, and the "Malenkai Loophole,"
and came up with this.  I'm most concerned that the first paragraph be
loophole-free, and welcome your comments.  And are there any precedences
that need to be claimed?

Patent Infringement

If there is a type of Ackanomic Entity whose creation or existance is
specified by a Rule or Rules, and yet a Player possesses an Entity of that
type whose creation or existance was made possible solely by the Rule
"Permissibility of the Unprohibited," that Player shall be Guilty of
Patent Infringement.

When a Player is Guilty of Patent Infringement they shall:

1)  deliver the item described in the preceeding paragraph to the Gaoloer,
    to be placed in the Gaol's Evidence Room.
2)  obtain a Prosthetic Forehead in accordance with the Rules, and present
    it to the Inventor, as a symbolic apology to the intellectual
    community.
3)  be said to be Guilty of Patent Infringement until an Appeal For Pardon
    is GRANTed them by the President.

- --------

Amend R711 (Appeal for Pardon) in the following ways:

Clause 2 shall read:  The player has had a verdict of TRUE reached against
them within the past 3 days on a CFCJ, OR the player is in the Gaol, OR
the player is Guilty of Patent Infringement.

The final paragraph shall read:  If the AFP is GRANTed, the penalty from
the most recent CFCJ against the player is waived, and/or the player is
immediately released from the Gaol, if they are in the Gaol, or the player
will no longer be said to be Guilty of Patent Infringement.

[I just noticed that this would prevent a player who is Gulity of Patent
Infringement from AFPing themselves out of a CFCJ verdict or Gaol.  (Those
are exclusive OR's, aren't they?)  I hadn't intended that penalty, but
maybe it's not inappropriate.]

- --------

Amend R709 (Gaol) by inserting the following paragraph between the the
current first and second paragraphs:

The Gaol has an Evidence Room that is unlimited in capacity.  The Gaoler
shall place items in the Evidence Room as directed by the Rules.  Items in
the Evidence Room belong to no Player.  Items in the Evidence Room may not
be manipulated in any way except as explicitly allowed by the Rules.  This
prargraph takes precedence over R665 (Treasury and Hard Money) insofar as
it is necessary to prevent the unowned items from being placed in the
Treasury.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 11:41:34 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1063

Proposal 1063 - Wed Jul 31 11:41:33 EDT 1996
No Weekend Passes
snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Amend R709 by adding the following paragraph to the end of the rule.

This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow a player to
preform any game actions.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Bronze Torches

On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 

Thanks.  It's lovely, and this is the most fun I've ever had earning a
Bronze Torch.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:50:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1057

On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Brinjal wrote:

> > 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)
> 

"   " would violate R703 (" ", which is listed as "[The name of this rule
is a single space character]").  That was my original motivation behind
my choice for renaming "Rob Ert Sevin," to prevent "   ", "    ", and
"     " from all playing at the same time.

Especially if "      " was the "       " and had a "        " :)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:07:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 247 (mr cwm)

mr cwm, our recent Bronze Torch recipient, has been chosen for the
following, and has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 247
Subject: Is This a Public Message by Me?
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 31, 1996, 21:04h New York Time)

Statement:

The witchhunt called on July 30, 1996, against /dev/joe was illegal.

Malenkai's reasoning:

At least one of the conditions required to call a witchhunt were met:

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. 

The witchhunt was called in response to the following post by the
Promoter to the public forum:

>Proposal 1056 - Tue Jul 30 12:44:51 EDT 1996
>I Should Be Allowed to Think
>/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

>Repeal rule 729, "Ackanomic Middle Ages".

"If, in a public message, a player refers..."

The obvious rendering of this is that the player must have made the post
themselves, and it must be their own words and expression.  Under this
common sense rendering, this post applies not as a public message by
/dev/joe or by Wayne.  I would like the Judge to clarify, once and for
all, this public message business, preferably along my obvious
translation :)

I personally have no opinion as to whether or not /dev/joe is a heretic,
but I insist that the rules be followed.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:11:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 244 Verdict

CFJ 244 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 244
Subject: That Funky Monkey
Initiator: this is not a name
    Judge: Mellon (selected Jul 28, 1996, 01:00h New York Time)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected Jul 31, 1996, 02:00h New York Time)

Statement:

When Rule 824 is invoked, each particular player's score only changes by
5 points, no matter how many of the 10 proposals were written by that
player.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Rule 824 reads:

>     If 10 consecutive proposals are accepted, the Brass Monkey shall
>     climb the tallest building in Acka Land and proclaim --
>     "The authors of the 10 consecutive proposals that were accepted
>     shall be awarded 5 bonus points."
>     After this proclamation, the score keeper shall increment the
>     appropriate scores by 5 points.

The rule does not state specifically whether my position is correct or
not. But it implies that it is correct. If player X wrote several of the
proposals, e is still only an author of them once and should only receive
5 points once.

In addition, relevant to the part of the rule beginning "After this
proclamation," the Scorekeeper is required to increment the appropriate
scores by 5 points. If player X wrote 3 proposals, e would be entitled to
15 points if my reasoning were incorrect. But it is stated in the rule
that the Scorekeeper is to increment that player's score by 5 points and
5 points only.

If this CFJ is judged true, the following score changes must be made as a
correction:
- -5  pTang1001001sos
- -5  /dev/joe
- -15 Malenkai

Malenkai's reasoning:

The first question is: would it be a conflict of interest for me to accept
judgement, seeing as my score would be directly affected by the verdict?
The value of all scores is relative to what all other players have, so it
could be argued that it would be a conflict of interest for me to judge
a CFJ that would reduce, say, ThinMan's score by 15 points. Less of 
a conflict of interest?  Is that possible?  Possibly.

Furthermore, if I could derive a verdict objectively from rule of law
and fact, it would not matter if it was a conflict of interest; the Rules
and conscience, would require me to reach that verdict, if I saw it.  So
I shall at least explore the question before deciding to accept or decline.

Judgements must accord with the rules, or game custom and spirit of the
game of the rules are unclear or silent.  We all know that, by now.

The wording of R 824 is unclear: The following interpretations are
possible:

1) (/dev/joe): Each author receives 5 points per proposal.

2) (tinan): Each distinct author receives 5 points.
 
3) (Malenkai): The author(s) receive, as a group, 5 points.

4) (Malenkai): No one receives any points for the consecutive passages.
          
This interpretation (4) is arrived at by a rather strict-constructionalist
argument, inasmuch as the the way the rule is written, the event that
occurs when the 10 proposals pass is not that the authors receive
points, but that the Brass Monkey climbs a building and says the following:

"The authors of the 10 consecutive proposals that were accepted shall be
awarded 5 bonus points."

The Brass Monkey is regulated elsewhere by R 823 and R 962.1, and neither
of those rules give the Brass Monkey any authority whatsoever to change
player's scores.  Had the last line of R 824 not been there, I would
snatch this one up like a piece of cheesecake, but as it is, I find this
argument unsatisfiying, but barely.  I presented it on purpose, however.

tinan argues for (2) above over (1), using the following:

> But it is stated in the rule that the Scorekeeper is to increment
> that player's score by 5 points and 5 points only.

This statement is FALSE (not *this* one, the quote :)). The rule does not
say that, and this Court is not amused by tinan falsely stating what
is "stated" in the rule. The rule says:

> the score keeper shall increment the appropriate scores by 5 points.

This can be followed by either interpretation of (1) or (2) above, and
only (1) or (2) above, without a problem, but it does not clarify or
indicate an interpretation amongst them, it just eliminates (3) and (4). 

I find no other rules that can clarify the situation.  I next turn to
the issue of game custom, specifically similar situations.  The custom
that comes to mind is so weak that it will not be presented.  Suffice it
to say it has to do with proposal *submissions*.

What other custom is there?  /dev/joe interpreted the rule before tinan
did.  tinan challenged the interpretation within a reasonable "grace
period".  Thus I find that /dev/joe did not establish custom simply by
"being first".

Thus I find there was *no* extant game custom at the time this unclarity
arose.  There will be when this is done, whenever that may be :)

The rule is simply unclear, and there is nothing lying around to clarify it.

That leaves "spirit of the game", or basically, "make a decision already". 

This is where the conflict of interest issue arises again.  I must decide
to accept or decline at this point in my exploration of the issue, or
judge UNDECIDED.  If I do not return a definitive verdict, it simply
becomes someone else's, or the Supreme Court's whim. If I missed something
in my above reasoning, and return a bad verdict, and that "something" I
missed is pointed out, it can always be appealed.  If I missed nothing,
and my reasoning is valid, appeal is simply transferrence of the problem.

So the way I see it, whether or not I return a verdict, it becomes 
*someone's* problem.  Who's problem should it be?  The Supreme Court?
That was addressed above. It would be a minor conflict of interest to
make it my problem, but I claim *very* minor, as per above. 

I find it is the Scorekeeper's problem, and that the Scorekeeper is the
most qualified and well within his rights to attempt this interpretation.
In the absense of any compelling reason or evidence to overturn that
interpetation, which was (1) above, the statement on which judgement was
called is FALSE.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:14:40 +1900 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: A Contract!

I and this is not a name have agreed to a contract, and I have paid the
file clerk my A$2 filing fee (financier, please note).  Since this
contract has rather far-reaching effects, with tinan's consent I am
making it public.

"At all times until 00:00 EDT September 1, 1996, all A$ held by players
other than this is not a name and /dev/joe are transferred to this is not
a name and /dev/joe (split evenly between them; in the case of an odd
amount of A$, the first odd A$ transferred by this contract goes to
/dev/joe, the next to this is not a name, and so on, alternating).  On all
proposals where /dev/joe and this is not a name vote the same way, all
other players are required to vote that way also."

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:42:21 +1900 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says

Last night, while I was trying to go to sleep, I heard a scratching noise
somewhere in the room.  I got up to check it out, and found that it was
coming from a little blue and red matchbox I found on the side of the road
last week.  I opened it up, and a shiny little flea jumped out (actually,
she was quite large for a flea, but still much smaller than the matchbox).

She spoke:
"Be careful, when you allow players to agree to require actions to
occur, to ensure that the players can't force other players to do
things without their consent.  The File Clerk is your friend."

That was it, and she jumped back into the box with such force that it closed
and flew out the window.  I couldn't find the matchbox again, but when I
re-read the Contract rules I smiled a wide grin.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:48:22 +1900 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (fon)

When Phoebe sailed out my window, she apparently flew quite far, because
fon found the matchbox tonight (er, afternoon, or whatever it is in that
part of the world).

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

Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:50:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 249 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 249
  Subject: Interpreting R 514
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Aug 01, 1996, 00:51h New York Time)

Statement:

The term "Player", as used in R 514 section (ii), refers to a Player who
is a party to a Contract, as used in R 514 section (i), and thus the
behaviours regulated by a Contract are not enforceable upon any player
who is not party to the Contract, regardless of what the Contract
says.
 
Malenkai's reasoning:

I hope that's a single statement.  I'll let the judge worry about the
reasoning.  I can't stop laughing.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #148
*******************************