Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #152
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, August 2 1996        Volume 01 : Number 152

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:17:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 249 Verdict

CFJ 249 has been Judged FALSE.  

Would the Web-Harfer please note the additional reasoning added by
Malenkai under R 563, included after the original reasoning.

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)
2nd Judge: this is not a name (selected Aug 01, 1996, 01:17h New York Time)
3rd Judge: ThinMan (selected Aug 01, 1996, 01:59h 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.

Malenkai's additional Reasonong by R 563:

BURN THE WITCH TWICE !!

ThinMan's Reasoning:

R 514 does not contain any language that would restrict its usage of the
word Player in section (ii).  This court acknowledges that such may well
have been the intent of the Rule, but that is no ground for a judgement.

Other unqualified usages of the term Player in the rules have rightly been
interpreted as "any Player," and this court sees no reason why the term
should not be interpreted the same way in R514.

I note that there is some question as to whether any player is legally bound
by any provision of any contract.  The question here hinges upon the
interpretation of "Enforceable."  Rules 514 and 551 seem to use an internal
definition of that term, which may mean that its conventional English
interpretation is not applicable.  I think I will CFJ that.  The answer to
that question is not germane to the resolution of the present CFJ, however.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:20:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 246 Verdict

CFJ 246 has been judged TRUE.

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.

Brinjal's Reasoning:

There being no pieces except Kings for the players to select,
the game of Party Chess cannot progress until the rules are
changed. If the game cannot progress, then the Chess-Umpire will
have no duties to perform until the situation changes.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 18:26:17 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 245 Verdict

>CFJ 245 has been judged FALSE. 
>
>I note that the reasoning may have further reaching effects that
>are obvious at first.

I note that the reasoning is not important. It's only the verdict that 
has any power.

- --      Mike Epstein            "Tell me, General, how dead is the 
      [email-masked]           Dead Sea?"
  *                      *                 --George Bush in Jordan
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:25:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: A New Contract

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> ThinMan wrote:
> >tinan claims that the precedence clause in section (v) of rule 607 applies to
> >both section (iv) and section (v), despite the fact that it explicitly says
> >"_This section_ takes precedence [...]" (emphasis mine).
> 
> "section" is nowhere defined in the rules. There is no reason to claim
> that (iv) and (v) are sections rather than paragraphs, stanzas, or
> what-have-you.

Game custom and spirit of the game will find them sections.  You're
grasping...

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:33:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 245 Verdict

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >CFJ 245 has been judged FALSE.
> >
> >I note that the reasoning may have further reaching effects that
> >are obvious at first.
> 
> I note that the reasoning is not important. It's only the verdict that
> has any power.

That statement is false.  Reasoning does not become part of the verdict,
nor does it become part of *explicit* game custom.  However, it is game
custom that the reasoning of CFJs becomes part of evolving, implicit,
game custom.  QV CFJ 113's reasoning, for example, and deny that that
is not "game custom"

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:45:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 250 (Habeous Corpus)

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

[I am using a new judge list were ThinMan is not #22.  My die still
rolls 22 all the time, which is no one now :)]

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 250
Subject: Contracts I
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Aug 02, 1996, 18:44h New York Time)

Statement:

The rules do not require players to abide by the provisions of contracts.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

A contract is not a rule, therefore the provisions of a contract can only be
legally binding if the rules say that they are.  No rule explicitly makes the
provisions of a contract be legally binding.  Rule 551, on the other hand,
makes specific provision for cases in which the provisions of a Rule are not
or cannot be adhered to by those to whom the provisions apply.  This implies
that it is possible for Players to not abide by the provisions of a contract,
and hence that not abiding by contract provisions is within the rules 
(although it may carry consequences).

There is also the question of "Enforceability."  To my knowledge, this 
concept appears only in rules 514, 551, and 607 among all the rules.
R 514 section (ii) seems to comprise a definition of "Enforceable" for
use in that and other rules.  If we accept R 514, section (ii) as a
definition, then any other interpretation of the word, including the
conventional English-language one, is inapplicable to contracts.  If we
must look elsewhere for a relevant definition of "enforceable" then
English-language convention is the obvious choice, but it is not clear
to me how that interpretation of the word applies to Ackanomic.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:49:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 251 (Bascule)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 251
Subject: Contracts II
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Bascule (selected Aug 02, 1996, 18:50h New York Time)

Statement:

The contract between /dev/joe and this is not a name that /dev/joe announced
on Wed, 31 Jul 1996 no longer exists.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I shall argue that the contract contains one or more provisions that are
not on listed in R514, section (ii).  If this is the case, then by R 514
the contract was not ever enforceable.  Again by R 514, non-enforceable
contracts are immediately destroyed.  Thus the contract in question was
destroyed as soon as it was formed.

I quote the contract:
>"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."

And R 514, section (ii):
>    (ii) A Contract is Enforceable iff the behaviours it regulates are
>    among the following list:
>
>    a) The transfer of currency from Player to Player
>    b) A vote of YES or NO on one or more Proposals by Player
>    c) The transfer of an Ackanomic entity

The key word here is "regulates."  The contract seeks to cause or perform,
rather than regulate, several currency transfers.  The distinction is
fine, but important.  It would be regulation if the contract said "Each 
player
other than /dev/joe and this is not a name must transfer [etc.]."  No rule
assigns contracts any authority to directly cause currency transfers; the 
best
that they are allowed to do is to attempt to regulate such behavior.
Moreover, it seems to me that the only effects that such attempts regulation
has is to produce penalties for certain violations.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:53:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 252 (/dev/joe)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 252
Subject: Contracts III
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Aug 02, 1996, 18:53h New York Time)

Statement:

No contract has legal authority to directly cause any transfer of currency,
although it may require players to transfer currency among themselves.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Currency is protected, so may not be manipulated except as the Rules specify.
No Rule allows a contract to transfer currency in any way.  Rule 514 may
allow a contract to "require" one player to transfer currency to another,
but the contract itself may not perform such a transfer.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:56:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 252 (/dev/joe)

> 
> /dev/joe has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
> to respond.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call For Judgement 252

I decline this appointment as judge.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:57:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 253 (/dev/joe)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 253
Subject: Hey, you can't do that
Initiator: Brinjal
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Aug 02, 1996, 18:58h New York Time)

Statement:

The contract between this is not a name and /dev/joe is non-Enforcable

Brinjal's Reasoning:

:From Rule 514:
> (iii) A Contract is not Enforceable if any behaviour it
> regulates violates any of the rules.
>
> (iv)  A Contract ceases to exist immediately upon being
> non-Enforceable.

The final sentence of the contract states that:
> "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."

Even without the vacation rule we have at least one player currently
in gaol who is prohibited from voting. In requiring such a player to
vote, this contract is attempting to oblige a player to commit an
illegal act. This is a direct breach of part (iii) of rule 514.
Thus by R514 (iv) the contract immediately ceases to exist.

I also note that transferring A$ while in Gaol is probably also
illegal, but that is a moot point if the reasoning above is
accepted.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:05:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 254 (De'ghew)

De'ghew has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 254
Subject: Gaolgod
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: De'ghew (selected Aug 02, 1996, 19:06h New York Time)

Statement:

snowgod was released fromthe Gaol as soon as the Supreme Court overturned
CFCJ 107

snowgod's reasoning:

[none - CotC]

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:09:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 255 (ThinMan)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 255
Subject: Paying the Acting Gaoler
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: ThinMan (selected Aug 02, 1996, 19:10h New York Time)

Statement:

The acting Gaoler must be paid for his services.

snowgod's Reasoning

>From R609: The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player   servesin an Office in an "Acting" capacity.  In such   a case, the Player is
responsible for performing all   of the Duties without receiving any of the
Privileges   of the Office.

R712/3 section (iv) (Gaoler) states that The Privileges are:

a) To receive NO salary.
b) To be able to accept bribes of currency from players in the Gaol.

Since it is a privlidge of the Gaoler to "recieve NO salary" and acting
officers are not entitled to the privlidges of office, any player who
serves as acting gaoler must be paid.  How much he should be paid is a
matter for another CFJ.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:15:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 256 (De'ghew)

Ge'ghew (again) has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
to respond.

[also note the 2 consecutive /dev/joe selections were not errors]

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 256
Subject: Contractual Paradox
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: De'ghew (selected Aug 02, 1996, 19:13h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of the File Clerk demanding a filing fee from two players
who form a contract whose only provision is that they transfer a Blue Cross
between themselves cannot be determined with finality.

Reasoning:

All Ackanomic actions are protected unless otherwise specified in the Rules,
so the File Clerk may only legally demand filing fees if the Rules
specifically so allow.  The rules only allow such action when players form
an Enforceable Contract (R607).  The legality of the File Clerk demanding a
filing fee from players who form a contract depends, therefore, on whether
or not the contract is Enforceable.

According to R514,
>    (ii) A Contract is Enforceable iff the behaviours it regulates are
>    among the following list:
>
>    a) The transfer of currency from Player to Player
>    b) A vote of YES or NO on one or more Proposals by Player
>    c) The transfer of an Ackanomic entity

A Blue Cross is an Ackanomic entity, so a contract whose only provision is
that one player transfer a Blue Cross to the other is Enforceable according
to R 514, section (ii)(c).

However, R514 also says:
>    (iii) A Contract is not Enforceable if any behaviour it regulates
>    violates any of the rules.

R 549 forbids the transfer of Blue Crosses between players, so a contract
containing a provision that one player transfer a Blue Cross to another
player is not Enforceable according to R 514, section (iii).

R 514 does not indicate that section (ii) superceeds section (iii), nor
that section (iii) superceeds section (ii), so it cannot be determined
with finality whether or not the contract described is Enforceable.

Since it cannot be determined with finality whether or not the contract
is Enforcable, it cannot be determined with finality whether or not it
is legal for the File Clerk to demand a filing fee from players who form
such a contract.

If this CFJ is judged TRUE, then its initiator (ThinMan) shall win the
game according to rule 219.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:19:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 110 (De'ghew)

De'ghew (3rd time) has been selected to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please
note snowgod's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Criminal Judgement 110
  Subject:  Unlawful non-receipt of Salary
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  De'ghew (selected Mon, Aug 02, 1996, 19:20 New York Time)

Statement:

Player this is not a name has violated R101

snowgod's Reasoning:

By recieving no salary for his duties as acting gaoler, this is not a name
has violated rule 609 section iv (per rule 712 (gaoler, creation of), and
in doing so, violated R101.

R609 section iv reads:

(iv)  Acting Officers:

              The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player
              serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity.  In such
              a case, the Player is responsible for performing all
              of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges
              of the Office.  For any given Seat, there can be an
              "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant.penalty:

Suggested Penalty:

A SENTENCE in the Gaol of 7 days.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:23:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 111 (Habeous Corpus)

Habeous Corpus has been selected to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please
note snowgod's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Criminal Judgement 111
  Subject:  Failing to pay the Gaoler
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Habeous Corpus (selected Mon, Aug 02, 1996, 19:24 New York Time)

Statement:

Player ThinMan has violated R101

snowgod's Reasoning:

ThinMan, acting in his capacity as Financier has transferred no salary to
this is not a name's account in compensation for his duties as acting
gaoler. ThinMan has violated rule 609 section iv (per rule 712 (gaoler,
creation of), and in doing so, violated R101.

R609 section iv reads:

(iv)  Acting Officers:

              The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player
              serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity.  In such
              a case, the Player is responsible for performing all
              of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges
              of the Office.  For any given Seat, there can be an
              "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant.penalty:

Suggested Penalty:

A SENTENCE in the Gaol of 5 days and a FINE of A$20

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:28:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 257 (Techno)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 257
Subject: Contracts IV
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Techno (selected Aug 02, 1996, 19:28h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule 607 cannot cause a contract to be non-Enforceable.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

R 514, section (ii), says:
>     (ii) A Contract is Enforceable iff the behaviours it regulates are
>     among the following list:
>
>     a) The transfer of currency from Player to Player
>     b) A vote of YES or NO on one or more Proposals by Player
>     c) The transfer of an Ackanomic entity

This section in no uncertain terms makes certain contracts Enforceable and
others non-Enforceable.

this is not a name has invoked R 607 to demand a filing fee for the contract
between Malenkai and me.  Neither of us has paid it.  R 607, section (iv),
says that in such a case the relevant contract becomes non-Enforceable.
However, that section of R 607 does not claim precedence over R 514.  R 514
has precedence over R 607 by the numerical method, and therefore the
conditions established in R 514 hold sway despite R 607.

this is not a name argued that by assigning an attribute (Enforceability) to
contracts, R 514 implicitly defers to rules of lower precedence with regard
to manipulation of that attribute.  I see no merit whatsoever in that
argument, but I include it for the sake of completeness.  There is no basis
in the rules for implicit precedence or deference, but there is a clear
procedure for handling conflicts between rules.

this is not a name has also argued that the precedence claim in R 607,
section (v) also applies to section (iv).  Here is the relevant part of R 
607:

>     (iv)  The Privileges are:
>
>           a) To receive the usual salary for a Functional Officer.
>
>           b) The right to demand receipt of a filing fee of 2 units
>              from each Player involved in an Enforceable Contract when
>              that Contract is submitted.  This transaction shall be
>              accomplished in the proper fashion.  If one or more
>              Players involved in the Contract cannot or will not
>              pay the fee, the Contract is deemed to be non-Enforceable.
>
>     (v)   An Acting File Clerk has the right to demand payment of the
>           filing fee.  This section takes precedence over all mutable
>           rules.

I see no reason to believe that the phrase "This section" in section (v)
should apply to section (iv) as well.  tinan's argument was based on
both sections dealing with the filing fee, and hence actually being one
"section."  I reject that argument.  The rule is clearly divided into
seperate sections, each denoted with its own Roman numeral.  "This section"
means the section denoted by Roman numeral (v).

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:36:10 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Okay, Real funny guys... 

Alright, enough is enough.  Would someone let me out of Gaol already?  You
guys are loving this aren't you?  Keeping an innocent man in Gaol.

snowgod

Ackanomic 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: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:38:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 258 (snowgod)

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

The Gaolbird or the Gaoler should determine which
actions (responding, delivering vedict, etc) are legal for snowgod.
I have not the time.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 258
Subject: Cash Flow Paradox
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: snowgod (selected Aug 02, 1996, 19:39h New York Time)

Statement:
  The legality of /dev/joe calling a CFCJ cannot be determined with finality.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:
  There are two contracts, both of which appear enforceable by CFJ 249
(unless the File Clerk's fee demand makes the second one non-Enforceable).
One of these continually transfers all the money not in the treasury to
this is not a name and /dev/joe, while the other continually transfers
all money those players have to ThinMan and Malenkai.  Therefore, all the
money not in the treasury is continually being transferred between these
players, and at any given moment it is uncertain whether /dev/joe has
any A$.  One of the requirements for submitting a CFCJ is paying a A$20
court fee to the Treasury; by the above reasoning it is unclear if such
action is legal.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 19:42:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 252 (Malenkai)

/dev/joe declined.

It has been reassigned to Malenkai, who has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 252
  Subject: Contracts III
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: /dev/joe (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Malekai (selected Aug 02, 1996, 19:42h New York Time)

Statement:

No contract has legal authority to directly cause any transfer of currency,
although it may require players to transfer currency among themselves.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Currency is protected, so may not be manipulated except as the Rules specify.
No Rule allows a contract to transfer currency in any way.  Rule 514 may
allow a contract to "require" one player to transfer currency to another,
but the contract itself may not perform such a transfer.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 20:37:40 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

On Friday,  2 Aug 96,  this is not a name wrote:

>>{Not taking any chances}
>I am running to the Church of the Markovian Dream.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Habeous Corpus

>You can't. You're not a member of it.

Yeah, but the Church Elder is in Gaol,  so e can't throw me out.

Habeous Corpus
<definition of elephant:  a mouse built to government
specifications--R.A.Heinlein>

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 20:37:40 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 245 Verdict

I normally don't like to comment on a CFJ once a ruling is made official,
 unless I intend to appeal it.  I must conffess,  I'm too chicken to
appeal this ruling,  but I did want to pick a nit with Robin Hood.

You said as part of (the whole of?) your decision that people cannot be
in more than one place at a time.  I submit that "place" and "Location", 
as defined in the Rules are not the same.  I also submit that occupation
of two Locations at once is already occuring,  unless I missed a posting
by snowgod.  E has been in the Acaknomic Afterlife since eir second
burning at least. E has also been in Gaol for the last three days.  If
snowgod has posted a message stating eir leaving the Afterlife,  I missed
it.  Do I hear a cfcj coming on?  (-;

Habeous Corpus
<definition of elephant:  a mouse built to government
specifications--R.A.Heinlein>

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 20:37:40 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Official Senate

On Friday,  2 Aug 96,  Malenkei wrote:

>I officially endorse snowgod for the seat.  I'm >too tired, and have
>double digit CFJs in the queue to process to check >if a single player
>may hold 2 seats.  As I remember the rule, nothing >prohibits it, but
>it may have been rewritten.  Oh well...

>From the time snowgod won election to the senate,  until chess piece
face's Impeachment,  e was already holding two seats.

Granted,  one was only an acting seat,  but I am aware of no Rule which
describes someone that is "acting" in some capacity as not capable of
holding that position fully.  

Therefore,  unless we _want_ to change the current Rules to close a
possible loophole (which I will not now definitively state it is), 
snowgod is eligible for nomination.

However,  I will also seek to fill chess piece face's seat.  I think a
turn in political office will do me good,  and sharpen my Acka skills at
the same time.

Habeous Corpus
<definition of elephant:  a mouse built to government
specifications--R.A.Heinlein>

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 20:37:40 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Contracts

On Friday,  2 Aug 96,  ThinMand wrote:
>stuff...
>(iii) A contract is not Enforceable if its >provisions call for any
player
>         to perform an illegal action or if any >rule requires that it
be not
>         Enforceable; otherwise, a contract is >Enforceable iff all
actions
>         upon which it places requirements are of >one of the following
types:
>stuff...

I would suggest the wording of this last clause were changed to read:
";otherwise,  a contract is Enforceable if all actions upon which it
places requirements are one or5 more of the following types:"

>stuff...
>             5) He shall not be allowed to vote >for 3 days; this takes
>                precedence over rules 390 and 463. 

I believe this to be too light a penalty.  It is conceivable that e might
still be eligible to vote on most if not all current Proposals, 
depending on  when e last voted and the time left on the Prescribed
Voting Period for unvoted Proposals.  Mayhap 8 or even 13 days would
constitute a more stringent penalty. We mustn't allow ourselves to be
considered soft on crime in Ackanomia.

Habeous Corpus
<definition of elephant:  a mouse built to government
specifications--R.A.Heinlein>

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 20:57:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official Senate

[email-masked] wrote:
> 

> However,  I will also seek to fill chess piece face's seat.  I think a
> turn in political office will do me good,  and sharpen my Acka skills at
> the same time.

You are welcome to compete for the seat, but, unfortunately, the
Nomination has not yet begun.  There is debate between the Speaker and
the Appointer as to which officer is responsible to hold the nomination.
I claim it is the Appointer, but need to check the rules.  Please
nominate yourself officially when the nomination is officially announced.

Malenkai
Enlightend - The earth is Round :--)

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 21:03:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CotC Report

I believe 10 CFJ distributions in a day is a record.  Who said contracts
had no use :)

In any case, its possible that I missed a CFJ, so speak up, I believe I
got 'em all.

Also, the CotC page on wilma has been updated with all the CFJs in the
queue, including those that may still be appealed.

Clerk of the Courts
Enlightened - not afraid of the Truth, or to speak it

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 21:36:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchfinder's Report

Synopsis:

/dev/joe: BURN THE WITCH! (CFJ 247 challenges the legality of this wh)

this is not a name: BURN THE WITCH!

	this is not a name cowardly fled and groveled at the Church
of the Markovian Dream to avoid his fate.  Church founder snowgod
attempted to kick him out, but was in Gaol.  He is burned anyway;
R 1014 does not claim precedence over R 729. 

this is not a name (again): BURN THE WITCH!

	note that this witchhunt ended a few minutes after the previous
one, therefore he became Enlightened, and thus cannot actually be burned,
but is possibly still considered a heretic, as well as being Enlightened.
Fortunately, R 729 is worded to avoid a paradox...

Pointlog (assuming FALSE on CFJ 247):

Aug 02 18:53 EDT: -10 /dev/joe: burned as a heretic
Aug 02 18:53 EDT: -10 this is not a name: burned as a heretic

Witchfinder General
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witchhunt against /dev/joe, called by tinan (ends Fri, Aug 02, 18:53)

BURN THE WITCH! (4 votes):
	
	this is not a name
	Malenkai
	mr cwm
	Bascule

No! E said the Earth is flat (3 votes):

	/dev/joe
	ThinMan
	Habeous Corpus

Thus /dev/joe is burnt as a heretic and he loses 10 points.
		
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Witchhunt against tinan, called by ThinMan (ends Fri, Aug 02, 18:53)

BURN THE WITCH! (6 votes):
	
	Malenkai
	mr cwm
	Brinjal
	/dev/joe
	ThinMan
	Habeous Corpus

No! E said the Earth is flat (2 votes):

	this is not a name
	Bascule

Thus tinan is burnt as a heretic and he loses 10 points.
		
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Witchhunt against tinan, called by Malenkai (ends Fri, Aug 02, 19:05)

BURN THE WITCH! (3 votes):
	
	Malenkai
	Brinjal
	ThinMan

No! E said the Earth is flat (2 votes):

	/dev/joe
	Habeous Corpus

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

Witchhunts are governed by R 729:
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/rule700.html#R729

Witchfinder General

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:56:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I am going on vacation now.
My expected duration of vacation is 1 hour.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:18:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Returning from Vacation

I am now returning from vacation.

- --
/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 22:19:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Nomination for Senate

A nomination is being held for the Senate seat previously held
by chess piece face.

The nomination will end 3 days from the date of this post.

Send e-mail to [email-masked] announcing your intent to compete for
this seat, if you wish too.  All posts from the past couple of days
expressing interest do not count.

Malenkai
Speaker
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
I note there was some debate between myself and the Appointer as to
the "appropriate" officer to conduct the nomination.  I agree with
tinan that it is the Speaker.  If anyone cares:

R 478:
> The Senate is an Office with four Seats, filled by Election for Office.

R 576:
> (i) The following Offices are Political Offices: President, Senator,
> Justice.

R 611:
> (i)  A Nomination is conducted as follows:
>            a) The appropriate Officer publicly announces the
>               beginning of the Nomination, the reason the
>               Nomination is being called, and when the Nomination
> 		shall end.

R 614: Appointer:
>(iv)  The Duties are:
>            a) To publicly announce the occurrence of an open
>               Seat for a Functional Office.

Appointer does not claim to be the "appropriate" officer for conduction
nomination for a political office, leaving "appropriate" undefined,
thus the catchall:

R 490:       
> If in any rule an action is required to be carried out, and the rule
> does not either specify who is to carry it out or define a mechanism
> for choosing someone to do so, the Speaker is required to carry out
> the task.

I render "appropriate" as undefined, and thus unspecified in this case.
Anyone want to claim an "indeterminacy" CFJ?

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 22:57:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 257 (SMH)

Techno was illegally chosen by the Clerk of the Courts.  Good help is
so hard to find :(. 

Simon Marty Harriman has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 257
Subject: Contracts IV
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (selected Aug 02, 1996, 23:00h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule 607 cannot cause a contract to be non-Enforceable.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

R 514, section (ii), says:
>     (ii) A Contract is Enforceable iff the behaviours it regulates are
>     among the following list:
>
>     a) The transfer of currency from Player to Player
>     b) A vote of YES or NO on one or more Proposals by Player
>     c) The transfer of an Ackanomic entity

This section in no uncertain terms makes certain contracts Enforceable and
others non-Enforceable.

this is not a name has invoked R 607 to demand a filing fee for the contract
between Malenkai and me.  Neither of us has paid it.  R 607, section (iv),
says that in such a case the relevant contract becomes non-Enforceable.
However, that section of R 607 does not claim precedence over R 514.  R 514
has precedence over R 607 by the numerical method, and therefore the
conditions established in R 514 hold sway despite R 607.

this is not a name argued that by assigning an attribute (Enforceability) to
contracts, R 514 implicitly defers to rules of lower precedence with regard
to manipulation of that attribute.  I see no merit whatsoever in that
argument, but I include it for the sake of completeness.  There is no basis
in the rules for implicit precedence or deference, but there is a clear
procedure for handling conflicts between rules.

this is not a name has also argued that the precedence claim in R 607,
section (v) also applies to section (iv).  Here is the relevant part of R
607:

>     (iv)  The Privileges are:
>
>           a) To receive the usual salary for a Functional Officer.
>
>           b) The right to demand receipt of a filing fee of 2 units
>              from each Player involved in an Enforceable Contract when
>              that Contract is submitted.  This transaction shall be
>              accomplished in the proper fashion.  If one or more
>              Players involved in the Contract cannot or will not
>              pay the fee, the Contract is deemed to be non-Enforceable.
>
>     (v)   An Acting File Clerk has the right to demand payment of the
>           filing fee.  This section takes precedence over all mutable
>           rules.

I see no reason to believe that the phrase "This section" in section (v)
should apply to section (iv) as well.  tinan's argument was based on
both sections dealing with the filing fee, and hence actually being one
"section."  I reject that argument.  The rule is clearly divided into
seperate sections, each denoted with its own Roman numeral.  "This section"
means the section denoted by Roman numeral (v).

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 23:23:16 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1065

Proposal 1065 - Fri Aug 02 23:23:16 EDT 1996
Blue Cross Automation
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend rule 549, The Blue Cross, to read, in full:
{{
0. The following steps are executed, in order:

i. All Undead stop haunting all Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, Gold Stripes,
and Blue Cross Bonuses.  All Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, Gold Stripes, and
Blue Cross Bonuses are destroyed.

ii. A Blue Cross Bonus is given to Robert Sevin.

iii. A Blue Cross Bonus is given to Wayne.

iv. An unowned Blue Cross Bonus with Mohammed's name on it is created and
stored in the Treasury, and the Undead named Mohammed begins haunting it.

v. A Blue Cross Bonus is given to each player who would have been given
a Blue Cross Bonus between the time the proposal which created this rule
was distributed and the time it was accepted, had section 3 of this rule
been in effect since the proposal was distributed.
}}

1. Each player has a Blue Cross Rank; it is a non-negative integer.
At all times, a player's Blue Cross Rank is equal to the number of
proposals he submitted which have been accepted, plus an additional 10
if he has a Blue Cross Bonus.  If a player has registered for the game
and quit one or more times previous to his most recent registration,
proposals he made under his previous registration(s) shall count
towards his Blue Cross Rank if they were accepted, even if he wasn't a
player when they were accepted.

2. No player may ever have more than one Blue Cross Bonus; this takes
precedence over any other mutable rule which would give a player more
than one Blue Cross Bonus.  Any time a player has more than one Blue
Cross Bonus, all but one of his Blue Cross Bonuses are destroyed.  Any
time a rule requires that a player be given a Blue Cross Bonus, one is
created with his name stamped in gold upon it, and it is given to that
player.

3. When a President or Senator has ended a term in office by resigning,
or due to his term of office expiring, and he has served at least 6 weeks
in that office, then he is given a Blue Cross Bonus if he does not
already have one, except in the case that the player resigned from the
office of President or Senator while an Impeachment Paper was pending to
remove him from that office.

4. A player with a Blue Cross Rank of 20 or more qualifies for a Blue Cross.

  a. For each 40 points of Blue Cross Rank above 20 that a player has, he
     qualifies for a Gold Stripe.  For each 10 points of Blue Cross Rank a
     player with a Blue Cross has beyond that required for his Blue Cross
     and all his Gold Stripes, he qualifies for a Silver Stripe.

  b. No player ever qualifies for more than 3 Silver Stripes or 4 Gold
     Stripes, and a player who qualifies for 4 Gold Stripes does not qualify
     for any Silver Stripes.  This section takes precedence over section a.

5. Any time a player has too many Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and/or
Gold Stripes for his Blue Cross Rank, as defined by the previous section,
then medals are taken from him and destroyed such that he no longer has
too many.  Any time a player has too few of any of these medals, the
President, Proconsul, or Senator may award medals of the appropriate types
to that player until he has enough of each type.  The Frobozz Magic Medal
Company, Ackanomic Division, performs the creation and destruction of
these medals as medals are to be awarded or destroyed.

6. A player with at least one Gold Stripe shall have the title "Officer of
the Blue Cross."  A player with four Gold Stripes shall have the title
"Commander of the Blue Cross".

{{[ This proposal intentionally does not give fon a Blue Cross Bonus,
since he did little to merit such an award.  Section v is mainly to
give me a Blue Cross Bonus because my term as President will end
before the proposal passes.  Section i is to close what I am now going
to call "Malenkai's loophole" -- due to his treatment of Bronze Torches.
Section ii-iv handle the other blue crosses which have been given to
past presidents and senators and by Rule 1044.]}}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #152
*******************************