Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #155
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Sunday, August 4 1996        Volume 01 : Number 155

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 96 01:35:14 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I take myself off of vacation.

this is not a name

- --      Mike Epstein            
      [email-masked]          Not a single byte of Microsoft software
  *                      *      was used to create this message.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 02:03:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Props 1053-1062

What is the status on proposals 1053-1062?  I think they were distributed
illegally (during a festival) as I commented before.  Are we ignoring
the festival entirely since we aren't quite sure when it started, or
pretending the proposals were distributed as soon as it was legal to
do so, or what?  I note that the proposals were not re-distributed after
the festival ended.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 00:03:57 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Misc: Vacations 

Best as I can figure, the following players are still on vacation:

fon
chess piece face
Pascal
Techno
Mellon
Calvin N Hobbes
Niccolo Flychuck
Robert Sevin

Is this pretty much correct?  Now that it is possible for him to do so, I
can hardly wait for Robert Sevin to return from vacation so that he may
_officialy_ admire his SVH and thank his Mad Hatter.  Looks like his
_unnoficial_ wish to keep his hat for a little longer came true.

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: Sun, 4 Aug 96 14:04:01 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 245 Verdict 

> From [email-masked] Sat Aug  3 01:47 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 245 Verdict
> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
> X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,11-14,16
> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 20:37:40 EDT
> Content-Type> : > text> 
> Content-Length: 855
> 
> 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>
> 
  There are senses in which people can be in two different places
simultaneously. However as I understand game custom, objects may be 
assumed to have those properties implied by their names if nothing
is explicitly stated. The rules don't say that the map is a plane,
but we assume it is, when the houses could equally well be floating 
mid-air.  Rules inherit their meanings from the english meanings
of their constituent words.
  Place and location have some synonymous  meanings. I took the simplest
and was using place in a purely english sense. Saying 'people can't be in 
two locations at once' while true in normal english, is poor idiom.

  Robin Hood

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 09:53:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC:  Locations

On Saturday,  3 Aug 96,  Malenkai Wrote:
>stuff...

{{8) All players who are not currently in the Gaol or a Hotel are moved
to
their Home.  This clause takes precedence over all other mutable rules.}}
>more stuff...

I like the new wording of this Proposal much better,  with the exception
of this section.  How about:
All Players who are not,  at the time of adoption of this Proposal,  in
the Gaol,  an Hotel or the Ackanomic Afterlife are moved to eir Home. 
This section takes precedence over all other mutable Rules.  After
adoption of this Proposal this section shall have no effect whatsoever. 

The last sentence is a little weak,  but I didn't want to risk being
stuck at home (or Gaol depending on when this passes) without being able
to leave.

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

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 10:16:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe Votes

Votes were accepted until Sun, Aug 04, 01:07

On the matter of the authenticity of /dev/joe's report of
what Phoebe said :

Although highly dubious, it has been found that what /dev/joe reported 
Phoebe alledgedly said was seemingly authentic, but just barely.  We
appreciate /dev/joe sharing Phoebe's wisdom with us.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoebe would not say anything so crass (5):

	Malenkai
	Robin Hood
	ThinMan
	Habeous Corpus
	snowgod

Phoebe said much the same thing to me once (5):

	Bascule
	/dev/joe
	this is not a name
	Brinjal
	mr cwm

Assistant Tabulator

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 11:29:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Props 1053-1062

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> What is the status on proposals 1053-1062?  I think they were distributed
> illegally (during a festival) as I commented before.  Are we ignoring
> the festival entirely since we aren't quite sure when it started, or
> pretending the proposals were distributed as soon as it was legal to
> do so, or what?  I note that the proposals were not re-distributed after
> the festival ended.

I interpret "publically announced" as a temporal condition in the Festival
rule, meaning the public distribution of the third proposal establishes
the time to start the Festival chain of events (it actually starts the
day after).  Since it was "publically knowable" at that time that three
consecutive proposals failed due to quorum (although no one *actually*
knew it), I put the Festival to start the day after that, thus my post
saying "I hope we enjoyed it" when I realised this.  The Supreme Court 
has already established that voting results are a "public message" 
(qv CFCJ 107).  

I have no problem with /dev/joe's interpretation, meaning "publically 
announced" is a proactive action required to trigger the Festival.  Since
I wrote "Festival", it may be only me that sees my interpretation.  Its
difficult to see unclarity in your own rules sometimes.  I note that
/dev/joe's interpretation came *before* the game custom established 
by the ruling on CFCJ 107.

In any case, given /dev/joe's reading, I think the best way to correct
the problem is to make the prescribed voting period of the proposals in
question start at the time the Festival ended, and disregard any votes
before then.  I waited until that time to vote.  I think it will be
sufficient if everyone who voted in that time simply resubmit their
votes, the nomicbot won't care, I don't think.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 96 13:02:04 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

>       This rule has precedence over any other mutable rule which
>conflicts in whole or in part, with any of its provisions."

I see a potential paradox here. If a rule conflicts with this one, this 
one takes precedence, and the other one doesn't conflict anymore. 
Therefore this rule no longer takes precedence, and the other rule 
conflicts with it, etc.

- --      Mike Epstein            "DOS computers manufactured by companies
      [email-masked]           such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions
  *                      *       of others are by far the most popular,
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/    with about 70 million machines in use
                                 worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other
hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and
that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form."
                                           --The New York Times, 11/26/91

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 13:18:19 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official 

Hello

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 14:19:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >       This rule has precedence over any other mutable rule which
> >conflicts in whole or in part, with any of its provisions."
> 
> I see a potential paradox here. If a rule conflicts with this one, this
> one takes precedence, and the other one doesn't conflict anymore.
> Therefore this rule no longer takes precedence, and the other rule
> conflicts with it, etc.

I've been thinking about that since I started this game.  I've never
been able to articulate the reasoning well enough to make the CFJ, though.

pTang and I discussed this a long time ago; he used to be in the habit
of making blanket precedence claims on his rules.

This type of blanket precedence claim is all over the rules, or at least
it used to be.  Do you think there is something about Locations'
blanket precedence claim that is uniquely paradoxical?

If not, make the CFJ on another instance of the blanket precedence
claim.  I'd love to see how it turns out.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 14:25:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> this is not a name wrote:
> >
> > >       This rule has precedence over any other mutable rule which
> > >conflicts in whole or in part, with any of its provisions."
> >
> > I see a potential paradox here. If a rule conflicts with this one, this
> > one takes precedence, and the other one doesn't conflict anymore.
> > Therefore this rule no longer takes precedence, and the other rule
> > conflicts with it, etc.
> 
> I've been thinking about that since I started this game.  I've never
> been able to articulate the reasoning well enough to make the CFJ, though.
> 
> pTang and I discussed this a long time ago; he used to be in the habit
> of making blanket precedence claims on his rules.

duh.  Wouldn't the numerical method hold sway in the above senerio,
alleviating the paradox?

The thing pTang used to do is claim: "This rule takes precedence over
all mutable rules". I say all *other* mutable rules.  The thing I always
wondered about was claiming precedence over yourself, as in the first
claim.  It seemed problematic, but not problematic enough for a R 219
CFJ.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 96 14:52:31 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

Malenkai wrote:
>duh.  Wouldn't the numerical method hold sway in the above senerio,
>alleviating the paradox?

Yes. But then what's the point of claiming precedence if it won't hold? 
Much better to state which rules a rule claims precedence over.

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

- --      Mike Epstein            "The one function that TV news performs
      [email-masked]           very well is that when there is no 
  *                      *       news we give it to you with the same
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/    emphasis as if it were."
                                                       --David Brinkley

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 15:32:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> >duh.  Wouldn't the numerical method hold sway in the above senerio,
> >alleviating the paradox?
> 
> Yes. But then what's the point of claiming precedence if it won't hold?
> Much better to state which rules a rule claims precedence over.

It won't hold only for select rules which also claim blanket precedence.

Secondly, stating which rules it holds precedence over is problematic
in some cases (and I claim this is one of them) because that can change,
as the lower number rules are amended.

Nomic was originally structured so that all amendments cause the rule
to be numbered to the proposal to amend it, thus eliminating this problem.
We changed that (because it was a pain the @$$), but we're left with this
unfortunate side effect (which is better than the renumbering IMHO).

Now, back to Locations.  Locations is a "structure rule", meaning it 
*should* have higher precedence than almost anything, except other
structure rules. It would probably have a power of around .75 in ThinMan's
power scheme.

Finally, isn't the clause you are complaining about in a self-deleting
clause?  In that case, who cares?  Who has the time to search for all the
rules it should claim precedence over when its once and done?  Locations
took long enough to write as it is.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:37:31 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka : I'm  back (from vacation) 

Fellow citizens of Ackanomia,
I am back home and diving right into the game.
Last time I looked, the Paty Chess situation looked pretty dreary.Could
someone please advise me as to the current situation in this matter,
prefferably by private e-mail, and I'll start working to remedy the
situation (mind you, I thought my starting set pieces was rather good...)

I've got a new RFC for Party Law of Gravity which I will be posting in a
couple of days, and I finally got the non-turned based Eleusis on the right
track, only to come back and find out that we don't have any playing cards
after all. Perhaps I'll rewrite it to be playable with no playing cards, or
just create a closed domain where they could exist. I still have to read
through the new batch of entities. I really think we are beginning to get
too many of those, and not enough interaction, how many rules are there anyway?

Great to be back (home and in ackanomia)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:53:36 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1056 resent 

At 05:47 PM 04/08/96 EDT ,   wrote:
>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".
>
>
>
>
I'm all for this one. We've this witch business for more than enough time.
Although I think my solution (holding the altar by the horns) had some merit
as well.
Once we remove the middle ages thing, we can repeal any related rules as well.

Niccolo Flychuck

>

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 17:27:29 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 258 (snowgod) 

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

>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.

Now that CFJ 257 has been judged TRUE, /dev/joe's argument falls apart.  In
particular, his statement that his and tinan's contract transfers money is
wholly false.  Moreover, his statement that mine and Malenkai's contract
transfers money is likewise incorrect.  /dev/joe and tinan are guilty of
non-compliance, but there is no paradox.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 02:03:07 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party Chess (Ammendments & CFJs) 

From the decision on the appeal for CFJ 239

>Supreme Court's Comments: 
>
>     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. 
The exemption does have an effect on the fact that the material value of the
king need not be defined, and it can still be a PCPD nonetheless. It
explicitly takes prcedence over R990-3. And it explicitly states that the
material value is undefined. Conflict resolved.
Also /dev/joe's entire reasoning that no PCPDs can exist is frivolous at best.
Malenkai has correctly described 990-3 as a rule which describes how to
identify PCPD from among the vast rule set we now posses. It need not define
them. If is accepted, and found to have the criteria described  in 990-3,
then the conclusion is that it must be one. Similar to taxonomies of spcies.
Plants would have existed even if no book about recognizing them were ever
to be written.
Anyone could have a proposed a rule which meets the criteria described in
990-3 before R990 ever existed, although I don't think anyone would have a
good reason to do so, yet only since 990-3 has been accepted, could such a
rule have been identified as a PCPD (I hate that acronym)

CFJ 240,242
Both of these point out a valid problem.
This should be rephrased. It was negligence that left it here, a left-oer
from a previous version of the rule which grouped all three Party Chess
rules, and the King rule in one rule. 
However there was a simple remedy and more than sufficient time to implement
it. It's called an ammendment.
Proposal 1058 rephrases some of R990, although I see little improvement in
it, it does fix this problem, and breaks nothing else, and it sufficient
reason to support it.

P1059
>In Section 1, Part A, "Chess Umpire" shall be changed to "Chess-Umpire."
>
>
>Section 1, Part D, Clause iii, shall be replaced by:
>(iii) To notify each Swinger by private e-mail whenever it becomes his turn
>to move.
>
>
>Section 1, Part D, Clause iv, shall be replaced with:
>(iv) To alert a Swinger by public e-mail whenever he is placed in check.
Why not 
(i) To maintian...
(ii) To check...
etc.

>In Section 2, Part H, the second sentence shall be replaced by:
>Once a play has been publicly announced, it becomes the turn of the next
>Swinger in the playing-order, unless there are no more Swingers in the
>playing-order, in which case it becomes the turn of the first Swinger
>in the playing-order.
>
You completely eliminated the time limit - In this version a Swinger can
just hold out on eir for infinity
Good enough reason to vote NO
>
>Section 2, Part I shall be deleted.
OK, I is redundant

>
>
>[It could be argued, perhaps successfully, that under the current section I,
>after each Swinger had played once then the first Swinger would get all
>the rest of the turns.  I am not positive that my rewrite fixes things,
>but I would welcome comments.]
It could be argued, but it would be false. Since after the frst Swinger in
the playing order, there is another Swinger in the playing order, so the
turn goes over to that Swinger. 

>Section 3, Part A, shall be replaced with the following:
>A.
[snip]
>
>[ The clears up some sloppiness between piece labels and Swinger labels,
>  and I think makes the language somewhat more straightforward. ]
If it makes it easier for you to understand it...
There is nothing wrong with the language in the existing rule

>The symbol '%lt;' in Section 3B shall be changed to '<'.
The symbol %lt appears nowhere in the proposal, it's an HTML typo that has
nothing to do with the rule.

>Section 3, Part C, Clauses (ii) through (iv) shall be replaced by the
>following:
>(ii) No Swinger may be in Check at the end of his move.  It is possible that
>the only move that will satisfy this condition is a surrendur.
>
>
>[ I think that the intent of the original part (ii) is already handled by
> the language governing placement.  The result of this amendment is not
> identical to the original wording, however. ]
You've just removed a major balancing act of Party Chess.

During the drafting of this rule it has been pointed out to me that the
placement option has the potential to be very powerful. However, it is also
an essential part of this specific chess variant. That's why I placed some
very serious restrictions on placmement. Orinally I thought to restrict only
the most recently placed piece, that would have been too much book keeping,
though. Thus, I made a simpler restrictions which would prevent pieces just
popping in. Such a restriction encourages strings of placements, followed by
stetches of on-board play.  Without it, we might just as well place cannons
on the board and shoot each other up. 
Sorry, the 1058 was an alright ammendment. This one is completely out of whack.
Vote NO on 1059

Still in 1059
>[ This adds an important conflict condition, and fixes the situation that
> the old /ii/ would have allowed the game to enter an infinite series of
> Special DD-Turns.  The game can still cycle under the revisions, but it
> must pass through at least one normal turn in the cycle. ]
I grant you that the new /ii/ is interesting, however the new /iii/ would
call for more conflicts than the old /ii/ did, and in any case, (iv)
subsection (f) limits the number of conflicts, so an infinite series of
DD-Turns could not have occured.
When a state of conflict is anounced, then we are still in the same DD-Turn,
if conflict occurs again and again, then eventually (after cp+4 conflicts)
everyone is forced to surrender.

P1060
Fine. Vote for this one

>The following section shall be appended:
>H. This is a PartyChessPieceDef rule.
>
>[Just to be sure that everything works.]
>
>
This is unnecessary, for the reasons I have explained above as to the role
of R990, and is a nest of potential problems.
R990 explicitly defers to PartyChessPieceDef rules.
If a rule declares itself to be one, and does adhere to the criteria for
recognizing it as such, then is it a PartyChessPieceDef rule, or isn't?
It declares itself to be one, so it must be. But R990 defers to
PartyChessPieceDef rules, after it has described how it identifies such
rules to defer to. But if defers to such rules, would it not be required to
defer to any rule which defines itself as such, even if it does not follow
the criteria, since R990 explicitly defers to them. I'll to have to rephrase
this and post a CFJ on the matter.
Because of that single sentence I am undecided as to how to vote on this one.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 18:10:36 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 250 Verdict 

I hereby appeal CFJ 250 to the Supreme Court.

I submit the following additional reasoning:

Habeous Corpus based his judgement of FALSE on CFJ 250 on R 514, section (v),
which allows a player to "call for enforcement" of a contract, and that it
is the duty of the "appropriate officer" to see that the contract is "enforced."
HC interpreted this to mean that Player actions may be changed by the application
of this rule.

HC has apparently rejected my argument that R 514 _defines_ "Enforceable" with respect
to contracts, as this argument surely renders his argument and verdict invalid.  I ask
the Supreme Court to reconsider my case.  However, even if the Court agrees with
HC on that point, I ask it to delve more deeply into the English definition of "Enforceable"
that HC ostensibly used.

"Law-enforcement" does not consist of changing people's past actions, nor of forcing
particular actions.  It consists of catching and punishing lawbreakers and of protecting
people from illegal actions against them.  This concept is more-or-less foreign to
Ackanomic, hence the comment in my original reasoning questioning how the English-language
definition of "enforceable" was applicable to Ackanomic.  However it may apply to Ackanomic,
that definition can in no way be construed to require players to abide by the provisions of
a contract; rather, it establishes that penalties for not doing so may be applied.  R551
defines those penalties.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in HC's argument, however, is summed up by the final paragraph
of his reasoning.  He argues that because a player's behavior _can_ be made to comply
with a contract (a position I believe to be in error), the CFJ statement is false.  HC's
statement, however, also implicitly allows that the player's behavior might not be made
to comply (if no-one calls for Enforcement).  How, then, do the Rules _require_ that a
player abide by the provisions of the contract?

ThinMan

>CFJ 250 has been judged FALSE.
>
>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.
>
>Habeous Corpus' reasoning:
>
>Rule 514(v) states, in part:
>"A Player may call for the enforcement of a behavior regulated by an
>Enforcable Contract.  In such a case it is the duty of the appropriate
>Officers to see to it that the Contract is enforced."
>
>This ensures that if a party to the contract attempts to "not abide" by,
>or violate ,  a provision of the contract,  the behavior required by the
>contract will be carried out anyway. [note: this seems to obviate a CFCJ
>in that since the required action(s) took place despite a Players attempt
>to do otherwise.  No violation of Rule 101 will have actually occured]
>
>Since the Player's behavior is modifiable to ensure compliance,  the
>Player can be made to abide by the provisions of a valid contract even if
>e attempts to do otherwise;  therefore,  this statement is judged to be
>FALSE.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 18:20:16 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Official: File Clerk 

this is not a name wrote:

>It is my understanding that both outstanding contracts have been 
>destroyed.

Not so fast, tinan.

>Malenkai's contract with ThinMan was destroyed when /dev/joe went on 
>vacation and therefore became unable to vote on proposals.

This is debatable.  In fact, I don't think you really want to pursue that
line of reasoning.  It requires that the contract be intrepeted to require
_continuous_ action by both you and /dev/joe.  With continuous penalties
for not performing.  Malenkai and I might be willing to sever the contract
voluntarilly, but not until you and /dev/joe satisfy your financial obligations
under said contract.

>My contract with /dev/joe was deemed illegal and thus non-Enforceable and 
>thus destroyed when CFJ 252 was returned.

Slow down there, too.  See, among other things, my paradox CFJ.  Also consider
carefully the wording of R 514 -- I don't think the financial clause has any
relevance to R 514.  In any case, your contract was not deemed illegal --
rather, one provision was deemed ineffective.  Your severance of that contract
is a condition for the severance of Malenkai's and mine.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 18:22:02 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 258 (snowgod) 

I wrote:
>Now that CFJ 257 has been judged TRUE, /dev/joe's argument falls apart.  In
              ^^^

That should be 252, of course.

Sorry, 
ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 19:22:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: President

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> OK, to follow tradition, my term as President began at 6 PM CDT on
> Sunday, June 9, 1996, and it shall run until 6 PM CDT, Sunday,
> August 4, 1996.

Its time for the 3rd Ackanomic Presidential nomination/election.  The
previous 2 races were:

Robert Sevin defeats Mohammed
/dev/joe defeats this is not a name

You may nominate yourself by sending such to [email-masked].  The 
nomination will end 3 days from the time of this post.  Note that the
rules have been rewritten so that you need not be the leader of a party
or have 2 supporters to nominate yourself.  Also note that game custom
permits campaigning during the nomination period.

Malenkai
Speaker
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other notes, the senatorial nomination period ends tomorrow nite
sometime.  Also, there are a mountain of CFJs which have not been 
responded to.  The deadline for response to those is tomorrow night as
well.

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 19:40:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 250 Verdict

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> I hereby appeal CFJ 250 to the Supreme Court.

> However, even if the Court agrees with HC on that point, I ask it to
> delve more deeply into the English definition of "Enforceable"
> that HC ostensibly used.
> 
> "Law-enforcement" does not consist of ...

I note that the reasoning of CFJ 245, although not *explicit* game 
custom, has alot to say (IMHO) about the use of customary English 
renderings in Ackanomic as *implicit* game custom.

I made this point when I distributed the results of CFJ 245, that the
reasoning had the potential to have far-reaching effects.  I also note
that CFJ 168 (I think) establishes precedence of game custom from CFJs.

This is important.  I have not delved into the implications farther, but
there is little time to appeal 245, if appropriate (and I'm not implying
that it is).

I ask the Supreme Court to delve into this issue on this appeal.

Malenkai
Has seen alot of CFJ text lately

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:16:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

The Locations RFC contains the statement:
> > > >       This rule has precedence over any other mutable rule which
> > > >conflicts in whole or in part, with any of its provisions."

I don't think this is a problem; the other rules still conflict with
this rule, although the part of the rule which is in conflict has no
effect.

> The thing pTang used to do is claim: "This rule takes precedence over
> all mutable rules". I say all *other* mutable rules.  The thing I always
> wondered about was claiming precedence over yourself, as in the first
> claim.  It seemed problematic, but not problematic enough for a R 219
> CFJ.

I don't think this is a problem either.  Assuming the rule is 
self-consistent without that statement, it will not conflict with
itself, so taking precedence over itself has no effect.  Only in the
case where a rule contains two sometimes-conflicting statements, one
of which is marked to take precedence over the other, or when a rule
is already self-contractdictory as in Rule 514 (see ThinMan's
paradox-win CFJ) will a blanket protection statement be a problem;
in the latter case, the blanket protection statement isn't the cause
of the problem, and in the former case, I think it might still work
out OK.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:45:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Chess (Ammendments & CFJs)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> >From the decision on the appeal for CFJ 239
> 
> >Supreme Court's Comments: 
> >
> >     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. 

> The exemption does have an effect on the fact that the material value of the
> king need not be defined, and it can still be a PCPD nonetheless. It
> explicitly takes prcedence over R990-3. And it explicitly states that the
> material value is undefined. Conflict resolved.

The problem is that although Rule 994 has precedence over R990-3, it doesn't
*state* that it is a PCPD rule, so there is no conflict.  Since R994 doesn't
meet all the requirements of PCPD rules, it is not one.  If merely having
precedence over all the rules regulating PCPD rules is enough to make a
rule become a PCPD rule, then several lower-numbered rules which also have
blanket precedence clauses are PCPD rules.

Note that R990 has "precedence over all PartyChessPieceDef rules, except
when this rule specifically states otherwise", and R994 is a case where it
states otherwise; were it not for this, then almost all the lower-numbered
rules would be PCPD rules, by NF's argument.  With that clause, if we
accept NF's argument, it is undecidable whether most of the rules are PCPD
rules, since they have precedence over R990 if they are not PCPD rules, but
then they should be PCPD rules, but then R990 takes precedence over them,
but then they aren't PCPD rules, so they have precedence over R990, etc.

- --
/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 21:24:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Official: Scores

I have updated the scores, assuming that no votes were changed by contracts.
I am still waiting on a judgement for CFJ 247 to determine whether or not
I was burned and lost 10 points.  The scores below assume that the
witchhunt was valid and that I lost the 10 points.

These will probably be very close to the scores for the end of the
bond cycle tomorrow, assuming no votes need to be changed.  No
proposals' voting periods will end in this time, but some things
like scoring on CFJ appeals may happen.

I am still ignoring votes on retracted proposals (1041 & 1048 out of
the recent batch).

Malenkai's score has not gone above 152 points so he still has the
trombone.  Calvin N Hobbes has been gnome buddy since just after P1036's
results were applied.

The columns have the same meaning as before; the first column contains
the current scores.

Score	Score22	Score8	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	-------	------	--------------      ---  -------------
164	147	66	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
148	71	-11	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
55	59	18	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
49	37	18	Techno               I   (Jerome Herrman) 
47	24	13	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
28	17	3	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
28	4	9	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
22	-34	-3	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
21	19	1	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
15	25	8	Mellon               I   (Niklas Mellin)
15	4	-5	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
14	12	0	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
11	10	-7	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
0	-9	11	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
0	0	0	Simon Marty Harriman A   (Andy Swan) 
0	0	0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
- -3	-3	0	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
- -10	0	0	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
- -24	-43	-41	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
- -24	-24	-20	Pascal               I   (Jason Reed) 
- -33	-23	-19	Calvin N Hobbes      I   (Thierry Joffrain)

Here are all the score changes except the +9/-9 to proposals' authors
and +1/+2/-5 for voting yes/voting no/abstaining on proposals since
the end of the last bond cycle.  If anything should be here and isn't,
let me know.

Jul 23 16:33 EDT: -1 this is not a name: CFJ 230 overturned
Jul 23 17:34 EDT: -20 /dev/joe: frivolous appeal of CFJ 227
Jul 23 17:42 EDT: -20 Malenkai: frivolous appeal of CFJ 228
Jul 23 20:55 EDT: +6 Brinjal: posting what phoebe said
Jul 25 12:58 EDT: +6 Bascule: posting what phoebe said
Jul 25 18:28 EDT: -2 snowgod: retracting P1041
Jul 26 15:10 EDT: +5 ThinMan: p1021 (short)
Jul 26 18:01 EDT: -2 Malenkai: retracting P1048
Jul 26 21:44 EDT: -10 Malenkai: witchhunt
Jul 28 01:00 EDT: -1 this is not a name: retracted CFJ 243
Jul 28 20:00 EDT: -10 snowgod: burned as a heretic
Jul 28 20:00 EDT: +61 snowgod: score = -61
Jul 28 20:37 EDT: -10 snowgod: burned as a heretic
Jul 28 21:00 EDT: -10 Calvin N Hobbes: burned as a heretic
Jul 29 15:58 EDT: +5 /dev/joe: p1026 (short)
Jul 30 00:28 EDT: -9 Malenkai: temporary clause in R545 from P1031
Jul 30 00:35 EDT: -10 chess piece face: failed to respond to CFJ 242
Jul 30 19:34 EDT: -20 Malenkai: Frivilous appeal of CFJ 239
Jul 31 00:33 EDT: +10 Malenkai: Rule 761 (temporary amendment from p1035)
Jul 31 01:00 EDT: -10 Mellon: failed to respond to CFJ 244
Aug 1 00:42 EDT: +6 /dev/joe: posting what phoebe says
Aug 1 02:00 EDT: +5 snowgod: p1040 (short)
Aug 1 02:02 EDT: +5 snowgod: p1042 (short)
Aug 1 20:02 EDT: -1 ThinMan: CFCJ 107 overturned
Aug 2 18:42 EDT: -1 this is not a name: CFCJ 108 overturned
Aug 2 18:53 EDT: -10 /dev/joe: burned as a heretic (if CFJ247 is false)
Aug 2 18:53 EDT: -10 this is not a name: burned as a heretic

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #155
*******************************