Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #194
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Monday, August 26 1996        Volume 01 : Number 194

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:37:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1161

OK fellow citizens of Ackanomia,
this the second proposal which would allow playing PartyChess with me as
Chess-Umpire. 
P1158 allows the Chess-Umpire to be a Swinger, which means no one has to
resign anything and we can play the game we have waiting so long to play.
P1161 fixes the Special DD-Turn, so that the simultaneity, and equal
knowledge are both maintained even when the Chess-Umpire is one of the
checked Swingers.
The gist of it is that someone else is appointed to resolve the conflict.

There is a clear prefference for non-Swingers. Note also that it allows an
observer to volunteer for the role of Assistant Chess-Umpire for a Special
DD-Turn, if it not possible to appoint any other player. Now I'm pretty
sure that  players would be willing to act as Assistant Chess-Umpire for
the duration of a single turn.

Some might note that there is provision for consecutive Special DD-Turn.
Currently this is possible in some rare cases, but current rules of
conflict make this case very rare. This can happen in the following case
we have four Swinger, a,b,c,d
in one move a,b are checked simultaneously, when this turn is resolved, c
and d are checked, which leads to another Special DD-Turn. 
This last conflict provision is one that I'm not happy with, however the
original phrasing is not really an improvement. I considered proposing a
change to the effect that it is only a conflictif at least one Swinger is
checked by the Swinger he was checked by at the begining of the turn.
However, this would allow many moves by Swinger conciously walking into
check, a move we would normally consider illegal, and there is no reason
to legalize it now.   

This issue does not hamper playability, but it is one that I shall
consider in the future. We'll just have to get the feel of the game first.

Niccolo Flychuck

Vulcan Swinger

Occasionally wearing his really cool silly vacation hat

Acting President

soon to be Chess-Umpire

and makes very little of eir titles

- --------
cultural icons?  what cultural icons?
I'm not really into all that Windows stuff
- --------------------

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:45:02 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 269 (Pascal) 

Malenkai wrote:
>It cannot be determined with finality whether the Harfmeister is permitted
>to declare a proposal under consideration Harfy, if three other such
>proposals are currently designated as Harfy.
>
>Malenkai's Reasoning:
>
>The reasoning is identical to that of CFJ 256, and CFJ 256's result
>establishes game custom that these types of self-inconsistent rules are
>paradoxes, and should be interpreted thusly.
>
>The self-inconsistent sections from R 1112.1:
>
>> The Harfmeister may designate proposals currently under consideration
>> (in the voting queue) as Harfy, by publically announcing that he or
>> she is doing so.
>
>> No more than three proposals may be designated as Harfy at the same 
>> time.
>
>The first sentence *allows* all proposals to be designated as Harfy,
>provided the Harfmeister follows a prescribed procedure.
>
>The second sentence, however, *prohibits* the Harfmeister from designating
>certain proposals as Harfy.
>
>Thus it is indeterminate.  We cannot tell which sentence is to have 
>precedence, just as we couldn't tell whether section (ii) or (iii) had
>precedence in the old R 514, leaving the only possible rendering a
>paradox, as was rendered in CFJ 256 (qv).
>
>The parallels to CFJ 256 are stunning.  [etc.]

Malenkai has a good case here.  The only counterargument that occurs to me
right now is that the first section quoted above principally defines the
_procedure_ for designating a proposal Harfy, but does not give universal
permission that that procedure be carried out.  If one interprets the text
that way then there is no paradox.  The judge must decide whether that
interpretation is as reasonable as Malenkai's.

ThinMan
RHG-holder

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:46:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Juice 

I hereby announce that I am making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice.

ThinMan
RHG-holder, for the moment

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 17:59:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 269 (Pascal)

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> >It cannot be determined with finality whether the Harfmeister is permitted
> >to declare a proposal under consideration Harfy, if three other such
> >proposals are currently designated as Harfy.

> Malenkai has a good case here.  The only counterargument that occurs to me
> right now is that the first section quoted above principally defines the
> _procedure_ for designating a proposal Harfy, but does not give universal
> permission that that procedure be carried out.  If one interprets the text
> that way then there is no paradox.  The judge must decide whether that
> interpretation is as reasonable as Malenkai's.

That interpretation is less reasonable.  With it, there is *no* extant
permission for the Harfmeister to declare proposals Harfy.  Proposals
are Protected, therefore the interpretation that gives the Harfmeister
permission to declare proposals Harfy has been confirmed by the game
custom that several proposals *have* already been Harfy, and that action
has been accepted without comment or challenge.

ThinMan is grasping at straws.  Perhaps he should make RGH juice, as
I have, and we can drink a toast (if RHG juice wasn't Protected :)).

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 18:09:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 270 (Brinjal)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 270
  Subject: Party Chess Purchases
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Brinjal (selected Aug 25, 1996, 18:09h New York Time)

Statement:

Robin Hood never purchased PartyChessPieces because at the time he made
his anouncement of purchase there were PartyChessPieceDef rules.

Niccolo Flychuck's comments:

while there were some rules which were very similar to PartyChessPieceDef
rules, their titles did not conform to the description in R990. There no
were no rules with titles that included the words "Creation of a
PartyChessPiece  "
although there were some that included the words "Creation of
PartyChessPiece  "
According to R990 only pieces which are defined by PartyChessPieceDef
rules can be purchased.
therefore Robin Hood could not have purchased pieces which did not exist.

notes (which are not part of the reasoning):
(Judging this CFJ TRUE would allow Robin Hood to purchase those pieces at
the current prices, and anull the previous purchase. Judging it false
would just leave them where they are, at the hands of the NAP Swinger I
believe - someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is nothing against
Robin Hood, I just want to get this straight now, before the pieces are
actually on the board,a TRUE verdict would eliminate the necessity of
proposing a refund)

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 18:31:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1162

Proposal 1162 - Sun Aug 25 18:31:48 EDT 1996
Amend the Steel Flea
breadbox  (Brian Raiter)

The following is a modest proposal.

Amend Rule 730, "Steel Flea," by replacing the sentence:

"It is a red and blue matchbox, very pretty, if a little battered."

with:

"It is a blue matchbox, very pretty, if a little battered."

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 18:32:04 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1163

Proposal 1163 - Sun Aug 25 18:32:04 EDT 1996
Making Swing Votes Tradeable
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[This proposal attempts tp bring swing votes into the framework of
tradeable entities, while retaining what was intended, as I read the
rule, anyway.  Currenly, the way I rewrote the financial system, I
don't think they can be transferred as this rule claims, at least they
cannot be transferred for a *tradeable* entity such as ackadollars.]}}

Amend R 1116, "The Law of Party Gravity" as follows:

1) replace section 2. d. with: 

"d. SwingVotes are Tradeable. Parties may regulate the way in which the
SwingVotes owned by their Swinger are traded."

2) replace section 2. e. with:

"e. The NAP Swinger may only trade SwingVotes to non-aligned players.
The NAP Swinger may not initiatiate an auction of SwingVotes. This has
precedence over R 1023."

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 01:47:06 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1163

On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 1163 - Sun Aug 25 18:32:04 EDT 1996
> Making Swing Votes Tradeable
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> {{[This proposal attempts tp bring swing votes into the framework of
> tradeable entities, while retaining what was intended, as I read the
> rule, anyway.  Currenly, the way I rewrote the financial system, I
> don't think they can be transferred as this rule claims, at least they
> cannot be transferred for a *tradeable* entity such as ackadollars.]}}

I agree with Malenkai's reasoning and support this ammendment.
The currently acceptable phrasing should be used to replace the older
phrasing.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Amend R 1116, "The Law of Party Gravity" as follows:
> 
> 1) replace section 2. d. with: 
> 
> "d. SwingVotes are Tradeable. Parties may regulate the way in which the
> SwingVotes owned by their Swinger are traded."
> 
> 2) replace section 2. e. with:
> 
> "e. The NAP Swinger may only trade SwingVotes to non-aligned players.
> The NAP Swinger may not initiatiate an auction of SwingVotes. This has
> precedence over R 1023."
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 18:58:34 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Registrar

The nomination period for the Functional Office of Registrar has ended.

The volunteers are:

/dev/joe
Niccolo Flychuck

I appoint Niccolo Flychuck Registrar.

- --this is not a name
  Appointer

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 02:02:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: retracting CFJ 270 (Brinjal)

I have been advised that this is legal. I am retracting it because a
pivotal missing word has my statement nonesense.

I'll be resubmitting it shortly.

On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Brinjal has been selected, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 270
> Subject: Party Chess Purchases
> Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
>   Judge: Brinjal (selected Aug 25, 1996, 18:09h New York Time)
> 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Robin Hood never purchased PartyChessPieces because at the time he made
> his anouncement of purchase there were PartyChessPieceDef rules.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 02:09:04 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Registrar

On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, this is not a name wrote:

> 
> I appoint Niccolo Flychuck Registrar.
> 
> --this is not a name
> Appointer

I will be anouncing the opening of the web page very soon, it was supposed
to be up today, may take another day.

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:31:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Registrar

Uri Bruck wrote:
>  
> I will be anouncing the opening of the web page very soon, it was supposed
> to be up today, may take another day.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Registrar

I would personally like to thank /dev/joe for the excellent job he did
as Acting Registrar, especially with the Yellow Pages and those little
icons.

Niccolo has a tough act to follow.  Remember, Magic Potato monday.  Does
game custom mean monday in the time zone of the Registrar, or monday
GMT -0400, or something else?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:36:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 271 (Malenkai)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 271
  Subject: Party Chess Purchases
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Aug 25, 1996, 21:35h New York Time)

Statement:

Robin Hood never purchased PartyChessPieces because at the time he made
his anouncement of purchase there were no PartyChessPieceDef rules.

Niccolo Flychuck's comments:

while there were some rules which were very similar to PartyChessPieceDef
rules, their titles did not conform to the description in R990. There
were no rules with titles that included the words "Creation of a
PartyChessPiece  "
although there were some that included the words "Creation of
PartyChessPiece  "
According to R990 only pieces which are defined by PartyChessPieceDef
rules can be purchased.
therefore Robin Hood could not have purchased pieces which did not exist.

notes (which are not part of the reasoning):
(Judging this CFJ TRUE would allow Robin Hood to purchase those pieces at
the current prices, and anull the previous purchase. Judging it false
would just leave them where they are, at the hands of the NAP Swinger I
believe - someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is nothing against
Robin Hood, I just want to get this straight now, before the pieces are
actually on the board,a TRUE verdict would eliminate the necessity of
proposing a refund)

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

Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:21:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 271 Verdict

CFJ 271 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 271
  Subject: Party Chess Purchases
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Aug 25, 1996, 21:35h New York Time)

Statement:

Robin Hood never purchased PartyChessPieces because at the time he made
his anouncement of purchase there were no PartyChessPieceDef rules.

Niccolo Flychuck's comments:

while there were some rules which were very similar to PartyChessPieceDef
rules, their titles did not conform to the description in R990. There
were no rules with titles that included the words "Creation of a
PartyChessPiece  "
although there were some that included the words "Creation of
PartyChessPiece  "
According to R990 only pieces which are defined by PartyChessPieceDef
rules can be purchased.
therefore Robin Hood could not have purchased pieces which did not exist.

notes (which are not part of the reasoning):
(Judging this CFJ TRUE would allow Robin Hood to purchase those pieces at
the current prices, and anull the previous purchase. Judging it false
would just leave them where they are, at the hands of the NAP Swinger I
believe - someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is nothing against
Robin Hood, I just want to get this straight now, before the pieces are
actually on the board,a TRUE verdict would eliminate the necessity of
proposing a refund)

Malenkai's Reasoning:

From R 990, section 2. D:

> (i) Any player may announce at any time that e is purchasing a new
> Party Chess Piece. 
> (ii) The Party Chess Piece must be a piece defined by a
> PartyChessPieceDef rule 

A verdict of UNDECIDED appeared necessary, given the CFJ 256/269 style
paradox here, as section (i) appeared to allow Robin Hood to purchase
a Party Chess Piece by announcing he was doing so, whilst section (ii)
appeared to prevent such by the fact that there are no such pieces 
(or at least the specific pieces he attempted to purchase) defined by
a PartyChessPieceDef rule.  (We'll need a RHG Tree soon; no fair using
this one, but there are dozens of others in the rules, I suppose).

Just before sending it off, however, I checked Robin Hood's actual
e-mail, which reads:

> I hereby purchase 1 copycat, 1 il-Nabi, 1 echo and 10 pawns, in that
> order.
> I will also be a spectator for party chess.

He did not claim to buy any Party Chess Pieces explictly, so did he do
so implictly?  None of the rules which defined the entities in question
claimed that the entities are Party Chess Pieces, nor did R 990 or any
other rules, due to the missing article "a" in the title of the specific 
entity rules.

The entities are protected, therefore Robin Hood did not purchase them,
or anything called a Party Chess Piece.  Had the CFJ statement simply
been "Robin Hood never purchased PartyChessPieces", a verdict of TRUE
would have been necessary.  

The initiator, however, is asking me to judge not only that statement,
but the *reason* the pieces were not purchased, because there is a
'because' clause: "because at the time he made his anouncement of purchase
there were no PartyChessPieceDef rules."

The 'because' clause is FALSE.  R 994 was a PartyChessPieceDef rule at
the referrant time of this CFJ's statement.  As the 'because' clause is 
FALSE, it could not have been the reason Robin Hood did not purchase the
pieces, therefore the statement on which I was asked to judge is FALSE.

In other news, I note that no pieces appear to be purchasable until the
paradox in R 990 is cleaned up (P 1160 will do this, it appears).

Also, and I have to get this out, its obvious that he bought these pieces.
Instead, we're haggling over a missing article "a" and the results of 
CFJ 256, both of which are over the edge, IMHO.

Wasn't there a song or proposal or something entitled "I Should be Allowed
to Think"?

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #194
*******************************