Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #159
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, August 6 1996        Volume 01 : Number 159

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:02:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Spelling Bee 5 - CFCJ's & tinan's name

OK, just a few more things for that spelling bee to fly through.

In CFCJ 103's statement, change "hase" to "has".
In CFCJ 103's initiator's comments, change "one" to "won" (in "he had one
  the game"); change "content" to "contend" (in "I content that").
In CFCJ 105's subject, change "Penalites" to "Penalties".
In CFCJ 105's suggested penalty, change "an" to "and" (in "an a player").
In CFCJ 107's judge's comments, change "distibution" to "distribution";
  change "definately" to "definitely"; change "snogod's" to "snowgod's".
In CFCJ 107's penalty, change "transferrence" to "transference".
In CFCJ 107's appealer's comments, change "ThinMans" to "ThinMan's"; change
  "probablity" to "probability"; change "suffiecient" to "sufficient";
  change "with" to "witch" (in "calling of a with hunt"); change
  "witchunts" to "witchhunts".
In CFCJ 109's judge's comments, in the final comment change "initiators"
  to "initiator's" (in "initiators arguments").
In CFCJ 111's judge's reasoning, change "snowgodmade" to "snowgod made".
In CFJ 92.9 + 2.718i's judge's comments, change "This" to "this"
  (in "This is not a name"; requested by this is not a name).

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 09:03:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1078

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 1078 - Mon Aug 05 22:26:27 EDT 1996
> > Creation of PartyChessPiece
> > Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
> > 
> 
> Would not the rule created by this proposal have the same problem
> as previously; ie it is ambigious as to whether it is a PCPD rule?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I suppose you mean the fact that title is missing the name of the
PartyChessPiece, although I can't imagine why. In that case there are two
possibilities. Either the rule is no a PCPD, because the title does not
conform, or we take the title to be a blank, I think it's not legal,
because we already have a rule with a blank title, and that would create
two entities with the same name (or has that been changed while I was on
vacation?) either way, best to re-submit this one with the proper title.

Niccolo Flychuck
btw- is it legal to retract proposals?

The other proposals of the same set are not ambigous. None of them have
the special features of the king, ie - no material value, and the
exemption clause, which caused the ambiguity in the first place.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 09:49:45 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka : Niccolo Flychuck for President

Fellow citizens of Ackanomia,

Niccolo Flychuck has been a dedicated Ackanomic player ever since e first
joined the game back in March. 
Niccolo has chosen to practice individuality throughout most of eir stay
in Ackanomia, because e feels that Ackanomia is shaped by the wills of all
of its players and factional divisions are at best temporary compromises.
Eir views on the issues are always analysed on a per issue basis. 
Niccolo has taken part in resolving some of the crises of Acknomic,
through creative judgements. 
Niccolo often undertakes large, long-range scale projects, and would
sooner support them rather than quick patches.
Niccolo Flychuck believes that the game should be fun and interesting to
all players, and will always strive to make it so.

Niccolo, although not a Vulcan emself, is a student of Vulcan philosophy,
and is guided by the concept of IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite
Combinations.

Vote for 
Niccolo Flychcuk 
the Logical choice.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:50:47 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: Request 

Is anyone interested in begining a very pre-release version of some rules
that would actually allow the different member nomics of internomic to
interact with one another?  I have some ideas, but I think this would need
a few bright minds working together to get anything done properly.  If
there is any interest in working on some internomic proposals let's get
something going on Acka Research.

Remember, anyone can submit Internomic Proposals to me, which I will then
pass submit to internomic.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Running for President!
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 00:50:51 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Gadgets-R-Us 

I'm cleaning all that blue paint out of my hair, clearing off my workbench,
and beginning to build a new gadget.  For this project, I open up my
BluePrint file and select the blueprint for the Whamiol.  Whee!  I love
building these things... So much fun!

The Whamiol will be completed on 8/9/96 at 00:49 Alaska Daylight Time.

Break open your wallets, people.  If that Blue Thing doesn't do it for you,
this little Whamiol is sure to pique your interest.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Running for President!
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 01:48:00 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Electronic Potato (ThinMan) 

I note that a total of A$8 should be transferred to my account from the
treasury.  A$2 for each of four proposals that passed recently:

 1036, 1040, 1042, 1051

Would the Financier prefer that I post reminders of Electronic Potato
transactions in the furture or is he already set up to handle these?

snowgod

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

Here are the voting results for : 1036
  Proposal 1036 - Thu Jul 25 01:59:33 EDT 1996
  Rock, Creation of
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 12 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes

11 YES votes   3 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

- -----

Here are the voting results for : 1040
  Proposal 1040 - Thu Jul 25 02:00:49 EDT 1996
  Protect #1
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 12 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes

10 YES votes   3 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

- -----

Here are the voting results for : 1042
  Proposal 1042 - Thu Jul 25 02:02:06 EDT 1996
  protect #3
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 12 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes

9 YES votes   3 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

- -----

Here are the voting results for : 1051
  Proposal 1051 - Thu Jul 25 14:11:14 EDT 1996
  Mentors (Take II)
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 12 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes

13 YES votes   0 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 07:20:25 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: OOPS

Ackazens;

I humbly apologized for my clumsy Reasoning in judging CFCJ111.  I
incorrectly stated that Rule 712 did not have precedence over Rule 612, 
when it indeed DID.  I mis-read R712 and mistook the word "rule" for
"section" in paragraph (ii). This seems to require a reversal on my part
of my own judgement.

However,  the Rules do not give me that option.  They state any statement
of reasoning I may give is _not_ part of the judgement,  but may be used
against the judgement in an appeal.  

I would like to stand by my judgement,  but for another reason.

R712 states that it is a privileged of the Gaoler to receive NO salary. 
It does not state it is the Treasurer's privileged to _pay_ no salary. 
If anyone has violated the Rules,  it MUST be the Gaoler emself,  for it
is eir privileged that was violated.  I quote from R712:

(iv)  The Privileges are:
     a) To receive NO salary.

The Rule makes no mention of _payment_ of salary.  The Treasurer is not
mentioned at all.  I understand that the term "salary" implies a
relationship between the Treasurer and the Gaoler.  But in the absence of
an explicit relationship,  for the purposes of this judgement (and
because the Rules don't give me much choice) I must believe that Rule 712
puts the monkey on the Acting Gaoler's back,  not the Treasurer's.

[note:  I really was looking for a way to judge this TRUE originally, 
CFJ 255 not withstanding]

Habeous Corpus
<How many ants would have to fart simultaneously before anyone noticed? -
Harry Harrison>

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 08:51:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

CFJ 256 has been judged FALSE

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 256
  Subject: Contractual Paradox
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: De'ghew (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Aug 05, 1996, 19:20h 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.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

There is no precedence issue. Both section (ii) and section (iii) dictate
which contracts are enforceable, and contracts must adhere to both.
Therefore it can be detemined with finality that said contract is illegal,
and my judgement is FALSE.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:44:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 254 (Habeous Corpus)

I agree, but given our fascination with multiple threads, might the reason
snowgod wasn't released be that CFCJ 107 really collapsed a thread in
which he was Gaoled and one in which he wasn't into the single thread in
which he was never in the Gaol at all?

(... another situation in which we need a principle to follow for
retractions, etc.) 

- -mr cwm

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Malenkai wrote:
> > 
> > Call For Judgement 254
> > 
> > Statement:
> > 
> > snowgod was released fromthe Gaol as soon as the Supreme Court overturned
> > CFCJ 107
> 
> I verdict of FALSE is indicated.  The Gaoler did not release snowgod
> at that time, nor did the President pardon him at the time in question.
> 
> No other procedure is explicity defined in the Rules to release a player
> from Gaol, and the Gaol is protected.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:47:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 254 (Habeous Corpus)

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, snowgod wrote:

> 
> Maenkai is probably correct.  The only thing I can think of that would make
> his reasoning incorrect is if the fact that the supreme court overturned
> the verdict meant that I was never thrown in the Gaol in the first place.
> 

Once again, I am caught responding before reading all my mail.  But a
FALSE verdict is still indicated.  If snowgod was never in Gaol, then he
still wasn't released when CFCJ 107 came out.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:00:43 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: VOTE FOR SNOWGOD

snowgod has somewhat foolishly asked me to be his campaign manager in 
the forthcoming election for President. 

I say foolishly because I last campaigned for Malenkai for CSRR, who 
lost. (To snowgod)

Really, snowgod ought to have asked me to campaign for /dev/joe or
Niccolo Flychuck. That fact notwithstanding, I am honoured to be
snowgod's campaign manager.

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

Ackazens... I want to introduce to you tonight somebody that we all
know, like and trust. A well respected Senator of long standing,
author of ten accepted proposals, and inventor of The Really Big Blue
Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really... Ackazens, please give it up
for the NEXT PRESIDENT OF ACKANOMIA... ***SNOWGOD***!!!!

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:46:56 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Electronic Potato (ThinMan) 

snowgod,

It would be a big help to me if you send me reminders when any of your
proposals pass (as long as you own the electronic potato).

Cheers,

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:52:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

In judging CFJ 256 FALSE, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> There is no precedence issue. Both section (ii) and section (iii) dictate
> which contracts are enforceable, and contracts must adhere to both.
> Therefore it can be detemined with finality that said contract is illegal,
> and my judgement is FALSE.

This is rather unsatisfying reasoning.  Section (ii) says, in essence,
contracts that meet this guideline are enforceable; all others are not.
Section (iii) then says certain contracts are not enforceable; it appears
that some contracts may be declared enforceable by (ii) and non-enforceable
by (iii); indeed, one or both of the contracts established in this game
to date have fallen into this category at some time.  (Both, if you reject
ThinMan's narrow-minded definition of "regulate" from CFJ 251 in favor of
the broader one already established by game custom, as it is used in R115.)

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:55:32 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: OOPS 

Habeous Corpus wrote:

>I would like to stand by my judgement,  but for another reason.
>
>R712 states that it is a privileged of the Gaoler to receive NO salary. 
>It does not state it is the Treasurer's privileged to _pay_ no salary. 
>If anyone has violated the Rules,  it MUST be the Gaoler emself,  for it
>is eir privileged that was violated.  I quote from R712:
>
>(iv)  The Privileges are:
>     a) To receive NO salary.
>
>The Rule makes no mention of _payment_ of salary.  The Treasurer is not
>mentioned at all.  I understand that the term "salary" implies a
>relationship between the Treasurer and the Gaoler.  But in the absence of
>an explicit relationship,  for the purposes of this judgement (and
>because the Rules don't give me much choice) I must believe that Rule 712
>puts the monkey on the Acting Gaoler's back,  not the Treasurer's.

I'm not sure whether the Gaoler bears any responsability here, but I note
that the rules do not require (or even allow) the Treasurer to pay anyone's
salary.  The Treasurer is responsible for maintaining the records of
everyone's account balance, not for making payments.  Indeed, the rules do
not even require that the Financier keep accurate account balances, although
I strive to do so, as did CnH before me.  Habeous Corpus is therefore exactly
right in judging that the Treasurer cannot violate the Rules by paying or
not paying salaries.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:26:34 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> In judging CFJ 256 FALSE, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> > There is no precedence issue. Both section (ii) and section (iii) dictate
> > which contracts are enforceable, and contracts must adhere to both.
> > Therefore it can be detemined with finality that said contract is illegal,
> > and my judgement is FALSE.
> 
> This is rather unsatisfying reasoning.  Section (ii) says, in essence,
> contracts that meet this guideline are enforceable; all others are not.
> Section (iii) then says certain contracts are not enforceable; it appears
> that some contracts may be declared enforceable by (ii) and non-enforceable
> by (iii); indeed, one or both of the contracts established in this game

(ii) and (iii) are not seperate rules but two components of the same rule.
(iii) can interpreted either as a clause that tells which contracts not
enforceable, or in its converse, logically equivalent form, as an
additional clause that says if the contract calls for an action which is
legal, then it is enforceable. 
There is no mystery here
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 13:29:52 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict 

I hereby appeal CFJ 256 to the Supreme Court.

ThinMan

- --

Call For Judgement 256
  Subject: Contractual Paradox
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: De'ghew (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Aug 05, 1996, 19:20h 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.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

There is no precedence issue. Both section (ii) and section (iii) dictate
which contracts are enforceable, and contracts must adhere to both.
Therefore it can be detemined with finality that said contract is illegal,
and my judgement is FALSE.

ThinMan's additional Reasoning:

The original judge's verdict is not consistent with R 514.  Indeed, he seems
to make my case for me when he says that contracts must adhere to both
sections (ii) and (iii) of Rule 514.

Section (ii) does not say that a contract "'may be' Enforceable if [...],"
rather it says that a contract "_is_ Enforceable iff [...]" (emphasis mine).
According to the criteria of section (ii), my hypothetical contract is
Enforceable.  Section (ii) does not make any provision for this determination
to be superceded.

There is no disagreement that section (iii) _says_ that the contract is not
Enforceable.  However, to say that therefore the contract is not Enforceable
is to ignore section (ii) which says that the contract _is_ Enforceable.
It is incorrect to judge that the hypothetical contract is not Enforceable.
Section (iii) also does not provided for its determination of
non-Enforceability to be superceded, however, so it is also not correct to
judge that the contract _is_ Enforceable.  R 514 is internally inconsistent
on whether or not the contract is Enforceable.

I realize that the above is basically a recap of my original argument, but
I don't think there is any basis for disagreeing with it, and I think it is
pretty self-contained.  I don't think that Mr Flychuck considered the matter
with sufficient care; perhaps he wrote his decision at a late hour, and his
normally-good judgement was impaired.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:14:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> I hereby appeal CFJ 256 to the Supreme Court.
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> --
> 
> 
> I realize that the above is basically a recap of my original argument, but
> I don't think there is any basis for disagreeing with it, and I think it is
> pretty self-contained.  I don't think that Mr Flychuck considered the matter
> with sufficient care; perhaps he wrote his decision at a late hour, and his
> normally-good judgement was impaired.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
First of all, thank you for considering my judgement normally good.

At first I tried to consider this as a precedence issue.
Either one section implicitly takes precedence over another, or it
doesn't. At any case there is no explicit precedence here. If we accept
implicit precedence, then we must accept the precedence of the lower
numbered section. However, in the past, it has been customary not to
consider internal implicit precedence.
This could be viewed as an open matter. 

I feel that neither section should take precedence. They are both
component parts of the same rule. And this is the crux of the disagreement
between Thinman and myself.

(ii) says that a contract is enforceable iff it is one of the listed
items...
(iii) says that a contract is not enforceable  if it calls for an action
which is illegal, ie - a contract can only be enforceable if the action it
calls is legal, and this must be true simultanesouly with section (ii),
which implies a logical a logical AND between the evaluations of these two
sections.

This is not the Law from Sinai I'm distributing here, but a legitimate
interpretation of the rule, and a legitimate interpretation of the
structure of the rule.  
I realize that this kind of interpretation is not very orthodox in
Ackanomia, but this fact alone should not be grounds for dismissing it. 

I ask the Supreme Court to consider this when deliberating over this
appeal.

Peace

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:22:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Proposal 1088 

I whole-heartedly support P1088.  I will hold off on submitting my contract
revision proposal, and will only submit it if P1088 fails.  As I have
commented earlier, I would rather just do away with contracts altogether.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:23:46 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1078

Malenkai wrote:

>[email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> Proposal 1078 - Mon Aug 05 22:26:27 EDT 1996
>> Creation of PartyChessPiece
>> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
>> 
>
>Would not the rule created by this proposal have the same problem
>as previously; ie it is ambigious as to whether it is a PCPD rule?

Not if my PartyChess revisions pass.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:43:59 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>
>> In judging CFJ 256 FALSE, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>> > There is no precedence issue. Both section (ii) and section (iii) dictate
>> > which contracts are enforceable, and contracts must adhere to both.
>> > Therefore it can be detemined with finality that said contract is illegal,
>> > and my judgement is FALSE.
>> 
>> This is rather unsatisfying reasoning.  Section (ii) says, in essence,
>> contracts that meet this guideline are enforceable; all others are not.
>> Section (iii) then says certain contracts are not enforceable; it appears
>> that some contracts may be declared enforceable by (ii) and non-enforceable
>> by (iii); indeed, one or both of the contracts established in this game
>
>(ii) and (iii) are not seperate rules but two components of the same rule.

That is certainly not in dispute.

>(iii) can interpreted either as a clause that tells which contracts not
>enforceable, or in its converse, logically equivalent form, as an
>additional clause that says if the contract calls for an action which is
>legal, then it is enforceable. 

The converse is not what you write above.  The logical converse of section
(iii) is:
"if a contract is Enforceable, then none of the behaviors it regulates 
violate any of the rules."

That is the _logically_ equivalent statement, but it is probably not
desirable to write the rule that way.  Moreover, even if you interpret
section (iii) as you wrote above (which, I reiterate, is incorrect) then the
judgement should be that the contract is Enforceable, which is not what you
stated in your judgement.

In any case, you are still missing the point.  I will try again to explain:

Section (ii) defines a condition that makes contracts Enforceable.  Section
(iii) defines a condition that makes contracts not Enforceable.  It is
possible for a contract to satisfy both conditions.  In such a case, a
judgement that the contract is Enforceable is not consistent with section
(iii), and a judgement that the contract is not Enforceable is not consistent
with section (ii).  Your judgement falls into the second category.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:30:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1088

> I whole-heartedly support P1088.  I will hold off on submitting my contract
> revision proposal, and will only submit it if P1088 fails.  As I have
> commented earlier, I would rather just do away with contracts altogether.
> ThinMan

Actually, that was part of my plan when I made the first contract.

I was planning (not realizing the 60 other loopholes in the contract
rules) to make an "I win" proposal, followed by repealing the
contract rules.  Before I could do so, the contract rules exploded
into a maze of twisty little loopholes, all different but somehow
alike.

When I submitted the money paradox, I was considering that the issue
ThinMan presented in CFJ 256 might also be the basis for a paradox
win, but before I could submit anything, CFJ 256 came out (indeed, it
even came out ahead of my money paradox).  I note that there is still
a thread where both contracts are enforceable (if it is decided that
earlier parts of a rule have precedence over later parts of the same
rule, and if CFJ 251 is overturned) so I have not retracted CFJ 258.
Also if CFJ 256 is true then CFJ 258 is also true, but in that case,
I will retract CFJ 258, as it would be a cheesy win capitalizing on
the same paradox.

Note that I'm sitting on CFJ 253.  Its statement is essentially the same
as CFJ 251, and the decision on that depends on the decision on CFJ 256.
I thought it better not to have too many duplicate/interdependent CFJ's
circulating.

There should be an addition to the paradox-win-CFJ stuff, above and
beyond the normal "invalid" judgement for repeated CFJs, which requires
an "invalid" judgement when somebody tries to steal or copy somebody
else's paradox win in this way (or, for that matter, when one person
tries to get multiple wins for the same paradox).  It needs to be
written carefully, though, as CFJ 258 is an example of a paradox win CFJ
which could be true by itself, or could just be true due to a different
paradox which was submitted previously as a separate paradox win CFJ.

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 00:06:06 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> In any case, you are still missing the point.  I will try again to explain:

I'm not missin your point, I'm disagreeing with it.

> 
> Section (ii) defines a condition that makes contracts Enforceable.  Section
> (iii) defines a condition that makes contracts not Enforceable.  It is
> possible for a contract to satisfy both conditions.  In such a case, a
> judgement that the contract is Enforceable is not consistent with section
> (iii), and a judgement that the contract is not Enforceable is not consistent
> with section (ii).  Your judgement falls into the second category.

I disagree. It is not the judgement which is inconsistent with the rule,
it is the contract which is inconsistent with the rule, and that is what
makes it an un-Enforceable contract.
Your argument turns this discussion from a discussion about the rule, to a
discussion about the judgement. The judgement was about the rule,
therefore any disagreement with the judgement should be about the rule,
and not about the judgement.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 00:09:53 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1078

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> >[email-masked] wrote:
> >> 
> >> Proposal 1078 - Mon Aug 05 22:26:27 EDT 1996
> >> Creation of PartyChessPiece
> >> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
> >> 
> >
> >Would not the rule created by this proposal have the same problem
> >as previously; ie it is ambigious as to whether it is a PCPD rule?
> 
> Not if my PartyChess revisions pass.
> 
> ThinMan
> 
This rule does not have the proper title, and therefore it should not be
considered a PartyChessPieceDef rule. This was an oversight on my part,
and I will submit a corrected version.
This statement is true both under the current phrasing of the Party Chess
rules, and under the proposed ammended form.
N
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:07:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>I feel that neither section should take precedence. They are both
>component parts of the same rule. And this is the crux of the disagreement
>between Thinman and myself.

This is no part of our argument.  We are fully in agreement that neither
section takes precedence over the other.  From that follows the paradox.

>(ii) says that a contract is enforceable iff it is one of the listed
>items...
>(iii) says that a contract is not enforceable  if it calls for an action
>which is illegal, ie - a contract can only be enforceable if the action it
>calls is legal, and this must be true simultanesouly with section (ii),
>which implies a logical a logical AND between the evaluations of these two
>sections.

THIS is the crux of our argument.  I maintain that there is no basis for
a logical AND of the two sections.  Indeed, the mere fact that they are
seperate sections seems to indicate that they should be considered seperately.

>This is not the Law from Sinai I'm distributing here, but a legitimate
>interpretation of the rule, and a legitimate interpretation of the
>structure of the rule.

"Legitimate" in this context implies "valid" and "correct" to me, which
will be determined by the Supreme Court.  I allow, however, that you
made a good-faith attempt to comply with the rules concerning judgements.

>I realize that this kind of interpretation is not very orthodox in
>Ackanomia, but this fact alone should not be grounds for dismissing it. 

If you acknowledge the unorthodoxy of your judgement, then you should make
some attempt to justify it.  "Unorthodox" can be rendered as "non-customary,"
and to whatever extent that rendering is valid, your judgement runs
contrary to the Rules.

>I ask the Supreme Court to consider this when deliberating over this
>appeal.

The Court should indeed give due consideration to the arguments on each
side of this case.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:17:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict 

We are in the interesting situation of carrying on two conversations at the
same time about the same subject.  I will not be able to write again for
awhile, so perhaps we can condense this into one conversation.

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>Your argument turns this discussion from a discussion about the rule, to a
>discussion about the judgement. The judgement was about the rule,
>therefore any disagreement with the judgement should be about the rule,
>and not about the judgement.

Discussion about the Rule cannot be distinguished from discussion about the
judgement, for the judgement establishes the interpretation of the rule,
until and unless it is overturned.  What I disagree with is precisely your
interpretation of the rule, which is to say your Judgement.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 00:40:16 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict 

At 04:07 PM 06/08/96 -0500 , John Bollinger  wrote:

>
>THIS is the crux of our argument.  I maintain that there is no basis for
>a logical AND of the two sections.  Indeed, the mere fact that they are
>seperate sections seems to indicate that they should be considered seperately.

and I maintain that there is no basis to consider two subsections of the
same rule to be different rules. Division into subsections is a convenience
which makes reading the rule easier. It by no means divides the rule into
seperate rules, which would be the  logical conclusion of your argument.
>
>>This is not the Law from Sinai I'm distributing here, but a legitimate
>>interpretation of the rule, and a legitimate interpretation of the
>>structure of the rule.

>>I realize that this kind of interpretation is not very orthodox in
>>Ackanomia, but this fact alone should not be grounds for dismissing it. 
>
>If you acknowledge the unorthodoxy of your judgement, then you should make
>some attempt to justify it.  "Unorthodox" can be rendered as "non-customary,"
>and to whatever extent that rendering is valid, your judgement runs
>contrary to the Rules.
I don't believe my judgement runs contrary to the rules. Quite the opposite.
I maintain that the rules must be followed in their entirety, and that we
cannot choose which parts of the rules to follow. Following a rule which is
made up of several  sections means following section 1 of the rule, and also
following section 2 of the rule, and also following section 3 of the rule,
and so on, unless the rule itself defines some other relationship between
those sections.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:36:43 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

> >I ask the Supreme Court to consider this when deliberating over this
> >appeal.
> 
> The Court should indeed give due consideration to the arguments on each
> side of this case.
> 
> 
> ThinMan

Absolutely. I'm not in a position to comment further, as I need to 
consult my colleague on the bench.

Bascule 

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:56:31 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Opinion Poll

I thank those players who have already replied to my opinion poll. 
The return rate is excellent (4/13 and I only sent them out a few 
hours ago). I look forward to publishing an in-depth analysis of the 
election based on complex statistical analysis of the results :)

Bascule
Editor, The Day Today

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 18:08:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1088

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 

> There should be an addition to the paradox-win-CFJ stuff, above and
> beyond the normal "invalid" judgement for repeated CFJs, which requires
> an "invalid" judgement when somebody tries to steal or copy somebody
> else's paradox win [...]

Its a shame we did away with the possibility of retroactive effects
from rule changes :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 18:42:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> I hereby appeal CFJ 256 to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Call For Judgement 256
>   Subject: Contractual Paradox
> Initiator: ThinMan

[lots of arguments snipped]

It seems like ThinMan's agrument hinges on the fact that the "conflicting"
language is in seperate numerical sections of the rule, as opposed to
the same paragraph or sentence, or joined with a word such as "unless"
or "except".

That is unfortunate, as it seems like I will soon have to write nomic
rules like management reports or legal documents.

The issue of precedence within a rule has not yet been addressed, and I
never thought it would need to be.  In any case, this case is an 
opportunity to possibly set a precedent.

I personally find myself agreeing with Niccolo in this dispute, as it is
obvious that section (iii) is a qualifier or exception.  I wish ThinMan
had been consistent and used the same strict-constrution of the language
when judging CFJ 213 as he is putting forth here :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:53:05 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 256 Verdict 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>At 04:07 PM 06/08/96 -0500 , John Bollinger  wrote:
>
>>THIS is the crux of our argument.  I maintain that there is no basis for
>>a logical AND of the two sections.  Indeed, the mere fact that they are
>>seperate sections seems to indicate that they should be considered seperately.
>
>and I maintain that there is no basis to consider two subsections of the
>same rule to be different rules. Division into subsections is a convenience
>which makes reading the rule easier. It by no means divides the rule into
>seperate rules, which would be the  logical conclusion of your argument.

Your interpretation requires reading extra, implicit, material into the
Rule.  Mine depends on interpreting the Rule as directly as possible.  You
rejected implicit internal precedence; why do you apply implicit internal
combinatorics?

Indeed, you apply more than a logical AND.  A logical AND is more like my
reading of the Rule, for it results in a contradictory Rule.  You are
performing more of a lexical AND.  Now that I think about it, your
interpretation is equivalent to section (ii) implicitly defering to section
(iii).  Your argument even boils down to an argument for implicit deference,
despite your ostensible rejection of implicit precedence/deference.

>>>I realize that this kind of interpretation is not very orthodox in
>>>Ackanomia, but this fact alone should not be grounds for dismissing it. 
>>
>>If you acknowledge the unorthodoxy of your judgement, then you should make
>>some attempt to justify it.  "Unorthodox" can be rendered as "non-customary,"
>>and to whatever extent that rendering is valid, your judgement runs
>>contrary to the Rules.
>I don't believe my judgement runs contrary to the rules. Quite the opposite.
[**]
>I maintain that the rules must be followed in their entirety, and that we
>cannot choose which parts of the rules to follow. Following a rule which is
>made up of several  sections means following section 1 of the rule, and also
>following section 2 of the rule, and also following section 3 of the rule,
>and so on, unless the rule itself defines some other relationship between
>those sections.

Whenever the Rules are unclear, as they apparently are here, the rules require
that judges rely on Game Custom.  Therefore, to whatever extent your judgement
goes against custom, it violates the rules.  You acknowledged the unorthodoxy
of your judgement; I am just pointing out the possible implications.

In addition, I object to your comments following the [**] symbol above.  You
imply with them that I do not agree with those statements when in fact I do,
and have never maintained otherwise.  Indeed, that is precisely the basis
for the CFJ in question.  The problem with Rule 514 is that, in my opinion,
it is at times _impossible_ to follow all sections.  The objectionable
statements notwithstanding, your argument seems to actually be that we should
attempt to follow some sort of gestalt-ish combination of all sections of
a rule.  Following section (ii) means that the hypothetical contract is
Enforceable.  Following section (iii) means that it is not.  The same would
be true if the two sentences were in the same section.

That is all I have to say on the matter, for it looks like I won't convince
you, and you have made no progress at convincing me.  It is in the hands
of the Supreme Court.

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #159
*******************************