Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #190
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, August 23 1996        Volume 01 : Number 190

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Chess-Umpire Situations

Wayne wrote, in response to the problem of no volunteers for the office
of chess-umpire:
> 4. Repeal all Chess-related Rules
> 
> Since no one wants to be the Umpire, we can't have a game.  Since we
> can't have a game, there is no use in having the Rules.
> 
> I would like to say that the game itself would have been interesting.  The
> combination of pieces would have been fun to play with.  But I have felt
> that they didn't belong in the Ruleset from the beginning.
> 
> Could all of the Chess Rules be farmed out into a seperate document, sorta
> like a Charter for a Political Party?  It just seems weird to read over the
> rules and come across definitions for Chess Pieces.

I remember Kelly Martin mentioning that Agora has something called
Subordinate Legal Codes (or something like that) which are not part of
their main rule set, but still act like rules (not sure if they actually
*are* rules or not -- this is a matter of implementation).  These are
used for specialized things, and from the description I got, they sound
like the kind of thing that would be used for Party Chess.

Perhaps we could somehow set aside the chess rules in a thing like this.

Another of Kelly's ideas (on the old Nobs agenda; never got done) is to
give each rule chapter and section numbers.  The entire ruleset would be
divided into about 15 or so chapters, and the rules in each chapter would
be the sections.  The rules would still maintain their ordinal numbers
and use them for precedence purposes.  In this arrangement, Party Chess
could be one chapter.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:58:08 -0700 (MST)
From: David Chapman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [none]

Olivia Chapman : born 08/20/96, 8lbs 1oz

I hereby take vacation unitil Sep 10

Geezer

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 11:09:08 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Volunteering for the position of registrar

Just what it says, now that the position is open I am volunterring for the
functional of Registrar. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 15:32:38 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Chess-Umpire Situations

Sorry, I've been on minimal communication for the past few days, and I
didn't realize there was such a crisis.
(you might have noticed my short replies the past few days. The stuff at
home should calm down soon, when my replies will return to their usual
frequency and length)

On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 1) Just look the other way and allow the rules to be broken in these cases
> of acting officers.  A good argument can be made for this.  This is the
> default action if no one takes interest in this discussion, or proposes
> a better fix.

I believe we will all find this unacceptable.

> 
> 2) At least for new functional officers, create a rule that says if no
> one volunteers for the office, the person who created the office is
> automatically appointed to it.  This will provide a deterrrant for people
> creating offices with lots of work that the creator, nor anyone else, is
> willing to do.  The concept makes sense, the problems are obvious.

Never once was I unwilling to do this, in fact, back when I wrote the
rules, the appointer at the time has assured me that he could easily take
over the job as well.
Anyway -  I have a couple of solutions here:
1. I can , informally, offer any and all assistance to tinan in running
the game, up to and including, maintaining a web page with the relevant
information, doint the relevant calculations, tracking pieces, SwingVotes
etc.

2. Should tinan decide to resign, I'll volunteer to take over the
appointer's office. Whether or not I'll have to resign my current position
as Vulcan Swinger, is a matter we can debate once this occurs.

I discussed privatly with another player another possible solution, and my
proposal to ammend 991 suggests yet another solution.

The proposal throws out the window the restiction that the Chess-Umpire
can't be a Swinger. That was a convenience that seemed reasonable at the
time. However, since being a Chess-Umpire gives little advantage to a
Swinger, except for a case of a special DD-turn. Once I get some feed-back
on this ammendment. I'll propose an adjustment for that as well.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 3) Specify certain offices as non-functioning in an acting capacity.
> The Historian is already like this, I believe.  The Web-Harfer and 
> Chess-Umpire would also be candidates (athough I have an archive of the
> web site which I update periodically, just in case).

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:47:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 266 Appeal

The following was received by the Courts.  The Supreme Court promises 
a prompt verdict.  CFJ 251 and 256 will be released momentarily as well,
assuming I can get to it before a contractor comes to my house.

Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby Appeal to the Supreme Court the Judgement on CFJ 266.

Habeous Corpu's Reasoning:

The Judgement on CFJ 266 was based on which Rules had Precedence over the
others;  this should have been immaterial.  Rule 1109 (Modesty) only
addresses Proposal scoring  "as a direct result of authoring an adopted
proposal".
 
While categorizing a Proposal as "Modest" or silly are definitely " a
direct result of authoring an adopted proposal",  and I admit there might
be currently or in the near future other categories that would fit this
description,  "Hary" is _NOT_ one of them.

Proposals are determined to be Harfy not as a direct result of
authorship,  but in the judgement of another party.  Points awarded as
such should be subject to the limitation of Rule 1109,  regardless of
Precedence;  Precedence is not relevant:  categorization determines the
applicability of R1109.

Therefore,  CFJ 266 should be overturned and a Judgement of FALSE
rendered.

Respectfully,

Habeous Corpus
<A radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air. - FDR>

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:57:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 251 Appeal Verdict

On CFJ 251,

The Supreme Court overturns the verdict of True and returns a verdict
of False.

Penalty for the original judge: 1 point

Aug 23 09:57 EDT: -1 Bascule: overturn CFJ 251

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.

Bascule's Reasoning:

ThinMan's reasoning is fine. I wonder if the contract ever existed
though.

>From R514:

> The Contract is considered to exist at such time as the appropriate
> Officer has received identical copies of the proposed Contract from
> each Player involved along with each Player's consent to abide by the
> Contract.

from the contract:

> all A$ held by players other than this is not a name and /dev/joe

As one of the players who is not this is not a name or /dev/joe, I
could be said to be involved in the contract, and I have no
recollection of sending a copy of the contract to the File Clerk
along with consent to abide by it.

/dev/joe's appeal reasoning:

ThinMan's argument rests on the belief that the word "regulate", as used
in R514 (ii), only means "restrict" or "require", and specifically that
it cannot mean "cause" or "perform".  However, CFJ 113 and numerous other
CFJs have established the game custom that a rule which causes or performs
some action can be said to regulate that action, as the word "regulate"
is used in Rule 115.

The judge presented only one other possible argument, which has already
been specifically invalidated by CFJ 249.

Supreme Court's reasoning:

The Supreme Court rules that the contract /dev/joe and this is not a
name tried to form never existed.

>From 514 i (now repealed)

The Contract is considered to exist at such time as the appropriate
Officer has received identical copies of the proposed Contract from
each Player involved along with each Player's consent to abide by
the Contract.

As the contract involved more players than /dev/joe and tinan,
through transferring their money to /dev/joe and tinan, and these
players did not send consent to abide by the contract to the File
Clerk, the contract never existed.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:05:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 256 Appeal Verdict

On CFJ 256,

The Supreme Court returns a verdict of True, overturning the original
verdict.

Penalty for the original judge: 1 point

Aug 23 10:05 EDT: -1 Niccolo Flychuck: CFJ 256 overturned

(I'll let the scorekeeper worry about which cycle this occurs in.  I
claim cycle 6, and claim that it is not indeterminate :))

The Web-Harfer should not the R 563 reasoning attached to this CFJ.

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.

ThinMan's 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 appeal 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.

Malenkai's R 563 Reasioning:

Throught the argument in the public forum after the verdict has been
handed down, it has been established that the rules are silent, and/or
unclear on the matter of resolving the internal precedence conflict of
R 514.  The issue of extant game custom has come up, and there has been
some question as to what, if any, such custom exists.  I wish to bring
to the Court's attention implicit game custom established in the reasoning
of CFJ 240 by Judge ThinMan:

> In my judgement, it is in the Spirit of the Game that a reasonable
> reading of the Rules that does not produce a paradox is preferable to
> an otherwise similarly reasonable one that does.

My only request is that the Court consider this implicit game custom, in
accordance with R 215, when reaching a verdict.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Supreme Court recognises the paradox within the old rule 514.
The Supreme Court can understand the original verdict and reasoning,
as it believes that the rule was intended to be read in this way.
However, the paradox exists in the way the rule was actually
written.

Regarding Judgement 215, the Supreme Court regards ThinMan's
reasoning to be more reasonable than the non-paradox reading of 514.
If the Supreme Court believed the two readings to be equally
reasonable, a verdict of False would have been returned.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:06:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fat Lady

The Fat Lady is singing.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:40:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acting Ambassador's Report

The following was received on Internomic.  Once CFJ 265 is resolved,
voting on this and the other internomic proposals can be resumed.

Note that all proposals can be found at snowgod's ambassador's page or
http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/zprop.htm

P 303 thru 306 are up for Ackanomic vote still.  Again, we must wait for
CFJ 265, which has been delayed for 10 days now, and a new judge will be
reassigned this afternoon.

Malenkai
Acting Ambassador
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one new Proposal. The results of Proposals 301 and 302 will appear
next week.

======================================================================

Proposal 306
Proposed by: Thring

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

Whenever a proposal is accepted, the member nomic that proposed it
gains two points.

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

Andre

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:50:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SC Penaltiles (ThinMan) 

CFJ 251: Bascule A$20, mr cwm A$12, Malenkai A$8.
CFJ 256: Bascule A$20, mr cwm A$12, Malenkai A$8.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:45:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Chess-Umpire Situations - resolved (fwd)

I have submitted a proposal that will eliminates the restriction on the
Chess-Umpire being a Swinger, and will soon submit a second one that fixes
the
Special DD-Turn. In case the Chess-Umpire is involved in the turn, there
should be someone else to resolve the conflicts. Prefferably a
non-Swinger.
Once both those proposals pass, counting the time it takes to distribute
them should be just over a week, I will take over the duties of the
Chess-Umpire. 
So tinan can safely anounce the begining of the game. It will take a
couple
of days for everyone to respond, and probably no more than one round will
be played before the week is up. I'll try to get a preliminary web page
ready by Monday.

Wayne - let me know if you did not get my proposal from today, I only sent
one before this message, and will send another one in a couple of hours.

Gentlemen ( and I use the term gender neutrally), the game is afoot.

Niccolo Flychuck

Vulcan Swinger

Soon to be Chess-Umpire 
and an honorable Ackazen

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 16:07:20 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1155

Proposal 1155 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:20 EDT 1996
Decks of Playing Cards
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

This paragraph takes precedence over all other mutable rules dealing with
Playing Cards and Decks of Playing Cards.  A Deck of Playing Cards (or Deck)
is an Ackanomic Entity which consists of some number of elements called
Playing Cards (or simply Cards).  Cards may not be created, destroyed, sold,
or traded except when entire Decks are created, destroyed, sold, or traded
together.  Cards may not be exchanged between Decks.  Decks are tradable.

Unless the rules state otherwise, each Card in a Deck has two attributes,
which are normally called suit and rank, and a Deck consists of one card
for each combination of suit and rank; these are called the Normal Cards.

The order that the ranks and suits are listed in the definition of a
particular deck defines the order of those ranks and suits in any game
that cares about the order, unless a different order is specified for
that game.

Standard symbols or abbreviations for the suits and ranks can and should
be defined in the definition of a deck, to make it easier to write the
contents of a player's hand that might contain many cards.

Decks may be used to play card games defined in the rules, as those
rules specify.  Players may hold individual Cards while playing a card
game but they do not own those cards while doing so.  While a Deck is
being used to play a card game, that deck may not be used in another
card game.

An Eleusis Deck has 8 suits: Wands (!), Strudels (@), Pounds (#),
Dollars ($), Maces (%), Spears (^), Daemons (&), and Stars (*), and
15 ranks: Suber (S), Nomic (N), Monarch (M), Knave (K), Page (P),
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, Ace (A).  In addition to the Normal Cards,
there are four indistinguishable Wild cards (W) in this Deck which have
neither suit nor rank nor color.  In this deck, Wands and Strudels are
blue, Pounds and Dollars are green, Maces and Spears are black, and
Daemons and Stars are red.

{{[ Example of another deck type:
A Poker Deck has four suits: Spades (S), Hearts (H), Diamonds (D), and
Clubs (C), and 13 ranks: Ace (A), King (K), Queen (Q), Jack (J), 10, 9, 8,
7, 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2.  In addition to the Normal Cards, there are two Jokers
(*1 and *2) in this Deck which have neither suit nor rank nor color.
In this Deck, Spades and Clubs are black and Hearts and Diamonds are red. ]}}

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 16:07:26 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1156

Proposal 1156 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:26 EDT 1996
Making R362 and R691 cause vacation instead of removal from game
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
 
 Amend rule 362 by changing the last sentence to:
 "If the player does not reply within two days, then e is placed on vacation
  with an expected duration of zero days."
 
 Amend rule 691 by changing the last sentence to:
 "If the player does not reply within four days, then e is placed on vacation
  with an expected duration of zero days."

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 16:07:32 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1157

Proposal 1157 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:32 EDT 1996
Getting rid of old players' stuff
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

This is a Modest proposal.

Create a new rule with the following text:

{{ All PFbonds and buildings in the treasury which once belonged to a player
   but now do not, and are not haunted by undead, are destroyed. }}

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 16:07:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1158

Proposal 1158 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:48 EDT 1996
ammend 991
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

A proposal to ammend rule 991 in the following ways:

I. Ammend section 1 B to read in its entirety:
"Any active player is eligible for the office of Chess-Umpire."

II. Delete section 1 C entirely
 
III. Section 1 D becomes 1 C

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 16:08:01 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1159

Proposal 1159 - Fri Aug 23 16:08:01 EDT 1996
Revising Rules 9 Times Leaves all kinds of Dingleberries
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 569, "Overturning Judgements", to replace all occurrances of 
the following sentence:

"In the event that a player opposes the appeal, they may appeal again to
 the Supreme Court by paying the penalty."

with:

"In the event that a player opposes the appeal, they may appeal again to
the Supreme Court, assuming they are not exceeding any appeal limits
specified elsewhere in this, or other rules."
 
{{[yes, another self-inconsistent rule ala CFJ 256.  Its cheap to claim
a win on this after it has been pointed out, IMHO, even I'm not doing
it :).  Note that I'm not insinuating that CFJ 256 was cheap, I was
just waiting until that verdict came back to see if I needed to fix
this]}}

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 16:09:46 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: mini-Vacation

I will be out of town until Sunday.  Since I will be away for only two days,
I will not go on vacation.  Ity would be too much trouble for someone else to
perform my office.

Bye,
Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:46:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1155

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1155 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:20 EDT 1996
> Decks of Playing Cards
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 

> An Eleusis Deck has 8 suits: [...]
> 
> {{[ Example of another deck type:
> A Poker Deck has four suits: [...]

I hope when Eleusis is eventually defined, that it is defined to be played
with a Poker deck.  The unneeded complexity of the proposed Eleusis deck
is the main reason that I could not support that proposal, despite my like
of the game Eleusis.  I wish /dev/joe had actually defined the Poker deck
as well, as part of this proposal, so we could decide which to use for
that, and other games.

Malenkai
Has co-invented a mind-numbingly complex card game, and knows from 
experience (qv http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/bogus.htm)

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:53:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 267 Verdict

CFJ 267 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 267
  Subject: Coup
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Brinjal (selected Aug 21, 1996, 20:44h New York Time)

Statement:

The "proposal entitled "Coup I"", as referred to in proposals 1142
thru 1150, is proposal 1141.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Its obvious.  It can be no other proposal.  Even if another proposal
comes along and claims to be "Coup I", there is no compelling reason
to select that one over P 1141.  The game custom that currently makes
P 1141 the referrant proposal cannot just be changed like that.

Just trying to anticipate /dev/joe.  This is going to look stupid if
I'm wrong.

Brinjal's Reasoning:

At the time of writing there is no other proposal called "Coup I",
so there can be no ambiguity and I must judge the statement TRUE.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:57:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 265 (Niccolo Flychuck)

Geezer failed to deliver a verdict.

Aug 23 17:58 EDT: -10 Geezer: failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 265

Niccolo Flychuck has been selected, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 265
  Subject: Tabulating Votes for InterNomic Matters
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Geezer (failed to deliver verdict)
3rd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Aug 23, 1996, 17:58h New York Time)

Statement:

The Assistant Tabulator is the officer responsible for tabulating votes
for the purposes of how Ackanomic will vote upon any matter in
Internomic.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

>From R 970:

> Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
> the Liaison shall initiate a vote in Ackanomic to determine how he
> should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic. The Liaison shall establish
> reasonable procedures for such voting, and shall cast Ackanomic's vote
> in accordance to the results of the vote.

The key phrases are "initiate a vote" and "establish reasonable
procedures".

"Initiate a vote" can be rendered 2 ways, "reasonably".  First would be
to initiate the process of voting within Ackanomic, in accordance with the
rules of Ackanomic, second would be to announce and conduct such vote.

Either rendering leads to the Assistant Tabulator actually conducting
and reporting the vote.

I quote from R 414:

> The Duties of the Assistant Tabulator are:

> (a) to handle solicitation, tabulation, and reporting of votes on all
> Ackanomic matters, excluding Proposals and Resolutions. This includes,
> but is not limited to: [actual list cut]

> This clause (a) and its subsections (a.x), take precedence over any
> other mutable rule which denies the Assistant Tabulator these duties,
> or would define an alternate procedure or officer (including Tabulator),
> to perform them.

Given the first rendering, it falls to the Assistant Tabulator, as that
is the officer which handles "tabulation, and reporting of votes on
all Ackanomic matters, excluding Proposals and Resolutions".  Determining
how Ackanomic should vote in Internomic matters is not a "Proposal"
or "Resolution".

The second rendering indicates that it falls to the Liaison, but R 414
explicity claims precedence: "...or would define an alternate procedure
or officer".  See the quote above.

Having the Assistant Tabulator tabulate and report on these votes is
"a reasonable procedure".  Furthermore, it is what our rules require.
A verdict of TRUE is necessary.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 01:04:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1155

On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 1155 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:20 EDT 1996
> > Decks of Playing Cards
> > /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> > 
> 
> > An Eleusis Deck has 8 suits: [...]
> > 
> > {{[ Example of another deck type:
> > A Poker Deck has four suits: [...]
> 
> I hope when Eleusis is eventually defined, that it is defined to be played
> with a Poker deck.  The unneeded complexity of the proposed Eleusis deck
> is the main reason that I could not support that proposal, despite my like
> of the game Eleusis.  I wish /dev/joe had actually defined the Poker deck
> as well, as part of this proposal, so we could decide which to use for
> that, and other games.
> 
> Malenkai
> Has co-invented a mind-numbingly complex card game, and knows from 
> experience (qv http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/bogus.htm)
>
I'll look your game up.
I always felt that Eleusis should be played with a larger deck. The
Eleusis deck is not any more complex than a standard deck, it just happens
to be bigger. 
But now there's an additional item for my Eleusis list. The person who
runs the specific game of Eleusis also picks the deck. This can be
anounced after he already knows who the participants, so they can be part
of the decision. 
Oh, yes, and I'll define a poker deck (or perhaps a 'legacy deck', before
that)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:31:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

The 6th cycle ended at 10:05 EDT August 23, when ThinMan won by paradox.
These are the scores for the end of that cycle, including the penalties
for the two overturned CFJ's:

Score	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	--------------      ---  -------------
34	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
14	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
14	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
10	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
10	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
8	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
6	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
6	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
4	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
3	Mellon               A   (Niklas Mellin)
0	breadbox             N   (Brian Raiter)
0	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
0	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 
0	De'ghew              V   (John Spickes) 
0	Geezer               A   (David Chapman)
0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
0	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
0	Pascal               A   (Jason Reed) 
0	Calvin N Hobbes     IV   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -1	snowgod              V   (Phil Ackley) 
- -6	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 

The old Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right Handed Grapefruit are destroyed,
and ThinMan is given one of each!  Also, breadbox, mr cwm, De'ghew, Geezer,
fon, Robert Sevin, Pascal, Calvin N Hobbes, snowgod, and Bascule each get
a Chartreuse Goose Egg.

The current scores are all zero, except Geezer's score is -10 for not
returning a verdict for CFJ 265 in the time limit.  Thus, he is the
gnome buddy.  This is an excellent example of why I don't like having
the player with the lowest score be the gnome buddy.  We're *rewarding*
Geezer for not returning a CFJ verdict in time!?

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:29:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1155

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > Proposal 1155 - Fri Aug 23 16:07:20 EDT 1996
> > > Decks of Playing Cards
> > > /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> > >
> >
> > > An Eleusis Deck has 8 suits: [...]
> > >
> > > {{[ Example of another deck type:
> > > A Poker Deck has four suits: [...]
> >
> > I hope when Eleusis is eventually defined, that it is defined to be played
> > with a Poker deck.  The unneeded complexity of the proposed Eleusis deck
> > is the main reason that I could not support that proposal, despite my like
> > of the game Eleusis.  I wish /dev/joe had actually defined the Poker deck
> > as well, as part of this proposal, so we could decide which to use for
> > that, and other games.
> >
> > Malenkai
> > Has co-invented a mind-numbingly complex card game, and knows from
> > experience (qv http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/bogus.htm)
> >
> I'll look your game up.
> I always felt that Eleusis should be played with a larger deck. The
> Eleusis deck is not any more complex than a standard deck, it just happens
> to be bigger.

Yes, but I think there may be people who have never played Eleusis. 
Introducing them on the standard deck makes sense to me.

I don't know if you play bridge, but I have played bridge with a Tarot
deck (sans major arcana) and a 6 suited deck.  Bridge ports to those decks
with little change to the basic rules or structures, just as Eleusis
does.  It is immensely more difficult, however.

There is something iconic about the standard card suits in our brains,
at least if you've played alot of cards (I'm off to www.zone.com now :)),
that indicates the standard deck makes sense to start with.

Malenkai
likes card games

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:37:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 268 (Wayne)

Malenkai has been selected.  I don't really believe in the relavence
of conflict of interest in nomic CFJs, as I've written in previous
verdicts, because there is always a conflict of interest, but I have to
decline this one, it seems too bogus to accept.
 
Wayne has been selected, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 268
  Subject: Coup I
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Malenkai
2nd Judge: Wayne (selected Aug 23, 1996, 18:38h New York Time)

Statement:

If proposal 1141 is rejected, and then one of proposals 1142-1150 is
accepted, the 'proposal entitled "Coup I"' referred to in the accepted
proposal will be proposal 1152.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

	[none - CotC]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 18:42:25 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Techno)

Wayne did not post what Phoebe said.

Phoebe's Matchbox has been found by Techno.

this is not a name
Acting Registrar

- --      Mike Epstein            "You can no more win a war
      [email-masked]           than you can win an earthquake."
  *                      *                   --Jeannette Rankin
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:49:56 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Score Report

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

[re the gnome]

> We're *rewarding* Geezer for not returning a CFJ verdict in time!?

Yes, like any 2 edged sword, this is the edgy edge.  On the other hand,
the gnome rewards those who write risky content.  The way the game is
structured now, there is really no incentive to write risky content
at all, except the gnome.  I'm not claiming the gnome is the *ideal*
reward, but there should be some consolation for a player attempting
to display creativity, and there should be some incentive to do so.

You seem to measure game play in terms of points.  That is not
an absolute, objective measure in nomic.  Others have chosen to measure
game play in terms of things like the gnome, or not measure it at all.
As long as the reward for losing points existed (was voted in by 2/3 of
the players, and successfully defended for 6 months), it *is* defined as
a reward; a reward for which there is a line of play to achieve, and a 
reward that in obtaining defines a warped sense of skill. 

I guess it all comes down to the fact that the gnome is FUN for alot of
players, and alot of players play games for fun, and the fun of the gnome
outweighs these negatives, for those players.  We should not remove all
the harfy stuff from the rules.

Malenkai
reviving the unending gnomic wars
(in good fun)

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:54:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 268 (Wayne)

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 268
>   Subject: Coup I
> Initiator: /dev/joe
> 
> Statement:
> 
> If proposal 1141 is rejected, and then one of proposals 1142-1150 is
> accepted, the 'proposal entitled "Coup I"' referred to in the accepted
> proposal will be proposal 1152.
> 
> /dev/joe's reasoning:
> 
>         [none - CotC]

This CFJ is preposterous!  Note the absence of reasoning.  P 1141 has
already been determined to be  Coup I.  The acceptance or rejection of
P 1141 has no effect on that designation.

What Coup II thru Coup X basically do is refer the reader to the location
of the rule changes to apply if they are accepted.  Those changes could
be on a web page, anywhere.  How does rejection of P 1141 change that
designation in any way?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:17:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 268 (Wayne)

> > Call For Judgement 268
> >   Subject: Coup I
> > Initiator: /dev/joe
> > 
> > Statement:
> > 
> > If proposal 1141 is rejected, and then one of proposals 1142-1150 is
> > accepted, the 'proposal entitled "Coup I"' referred to in the accepted
> > proposal will be proposal 1152.
> > 
> > /dev/joe's reasoning:
> > 
> >         [none - CotC]
> 
> This CFJ is preposterous!  Note the absence of reasoning.

I have posted my reasoning before, in the discussion of CFJ 267.
The judge either ignored my reasoning, or interpreted the "is" in
CFJ 267's statement as "at the time the CFJ was submitted".  I don't
know which; his reasoning doesn't make this clear.

> P 1141 has
> already been determined to be  Coup I.  The acceptance or rejection of
> P 1141 has no effect on that designation.

CFJ 267 concerned the present condition, or the condition at the time the
CFJ was submitted.  This CFJ concerns the condition if and when one of
the proposals 1142-1150 is accepted.  Since the statement of CFJ 267 was
poorly worded, as it is not worded so as to consider the real game effect
that will occur should one of those proposals be accepted, I submitted
a new CFJ.

> What Coup II thru Coup X basically do is refer the reader to the location
> of the rule changes to apply if they are accepted.  Those changes could
> be on a web page, anywhere.  How does rejection of P 1141 change that
> designation in any way?

What happens to a proposal after its voting period has ended and its results
are posted and (if accepted) its rule changes are applied is unclear.  There
seems to be game custom, reflected in a few rules, that proposals cease to
exist once their rule changes have been applied.  This is by no means clear,
however.  Clearing up such problems is one of the uses of a CFJ.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #190
*******************************