Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #199
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, August 30 1996        Volume 01 : Number 199

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 03:57:01 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 112

snowgod wrote:

>Illegal Gumball Manipulation, on the surface does not appear to be a
>horrible crime.  However, one never knows where these things may lead.
>First it's a little chewing gum in the armpit, then possibly coke frinking.
>Next thing you know, someone may try to eat the little lamb or the magic
>potato for dinner.

Indeed.  This very morning I barely restrained myself from having poached
Chartreuse Goose Egg and a glass of Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice for
breakfast.  It was not fear of public retribution that stopped me, but
rather my deep sense of propriety.

ThinMan
Because I can

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 06:56:29 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 1171

On Wed, 28 Aug 1996,  snowgod wrote:

>I would like to see a Mutable rule be able to claim precedence over an
imutable, if that imutable specifically defers precedence.  This proposal
wouldn't allow for that.

I'm just trying to establish a difference between mutable and immutable
Rules.  After my previous proposal was flamed down,  the only differences
between the two are precedence and the length of proposal required to
ammend the Rule.  Since we already have a "Short is Good" Rule,  this is
my last chance to establish whether or not there is any significant
difference between making a Rule mutable or immutable.  Due to the large
vote against my previous proposal,  I calculate this one will fail by a
substantial margin,  anyway.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 08:29:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 273 (Robin Hood)

Robin Hood has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 273
  Subject: Bond Cycle
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Robin Hood (selected Aug 29, 1996, 08:31h New York Time)
 
Statement:

The "appropriate week" for the current two-week bond cycle to end is the
week containing the day exactly two weeks after the cycle began.

ThinMan's reasoning:

The other possibility is the week containing the first Monday at least
two weeks after the cycle began.  The rules are unclear on this matter,
but I see no basis for a paradox claim -- the matter can and will be
cleared up by judicial decision.  I selected the above interpretation to
CFJ first because of the timing issues.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:03:11 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 112 

>snowgod wrote:
>
>>Illegal Gumball Manipulation, on the surface does not appear to be a
>>horrible crime.  However, one never knows where these things may lead.
>>First it's a little chewing gum in the armpit, then possibly coke frinking.
>>Next thing you know, someone may try to eat the little lamb or the magic
>>potato for dinner.
>
>Indeed.  This very morning I barely restrained myself from having poached
>Chartreuse Goose Egg and a glass of Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice for
>breakfast.  It was not fear of public retribution that stopped me, but
>rather my deep sense of propriety.

Thinman is lucky to be in the rather unique position of having a whole
breakfast awaiting him, should he so desire.  The possiblility of having
bot Eggs and Fruit at the same time seems almost too good to be true.  We
should all admire the example he sets as he exhibits restraint in cooking
breakfast.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - President
Inventor - Former 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: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:06:27 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 1171 

>On Wed, 28 Aug 1996,  snowgod wrote:
>
>>I would like to see a Mutable rule be able to claim precedence over an
>imutable, if that imutable specifically defers precedence.  This proposal
>wouldn't allow for that.
>
>I'm just trying to establish a difference between mutable and immutable
>Rules.  After my previous proposal was flamed down,  the only differences
>between the two are precedence and the length of proposal required to
>ammend the Rule.  Since we already have a "Short is Good" Rule,  this is
>my last chance to establish whether or not there is any significant
>difference between making a Rule mutable or immutable.  Due to the large
>vote against my previous proposal,  I calculate this one will fail by a
>substantial margin,  anyway.

I voted yes for your previous proposal, and I will probably vote yes for
this one, but  I would like to see the possibilty of an imutable defering
to a mutable established in future amendments.  I believe currently it is
acceptable game custom (accoring to some CFJ) but I don't believe it has
ever actually been done.

snowgod
just rambling

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 22:21:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: very preliminary PartyChess home-page

http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/acka/PartyChess

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:45:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 1171

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 

> I voted yes for your previous proposal, and I will probably vote yes for
> this one, but  I would like to see the possibilty of an imutable defering
> to a mutable established in future amendments.  I believe currently it is
> acceptable game custom (accoring to some CFJ) but I don't believe it has
> ever actually been done.

R 115 *implicitly* defers to mutables.  A CFJ I submitted a long time 
ago established this, and it was a very important result.  Be very, very
careful with your tinkering in this area, especially with R 108 around
(then again, we are due for another crash attempt...)

Malenkai
wishing RHG Juice was not Protected

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 01:24:34 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: PartyBoard beta

http://wwww.actcom.co.il/~bruck/acka/PartyChess/PartyBoard.html

most of the cells are empty, so many would appear to be just a uniform
slate, the ons that appear as empty cells actually have a couple of
non-breaking spaces on them. Take a look and let me know what problems, if
any, your browser gives. I'll put up a couple of other versions during the
next day, and provide links to all of them.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:37:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 112 Verdict

CFCJ 112 has been judged TRUE.  The penalty is:

Snowgod will go to Gaol for 6 days or until the end of the cycle,
whichever comes first.

A little stiffer than some expected.  Assuming the second part is in
accordance with the rules itself, it will give snowgod incentive to judge
TRUE on CFJ 269, should he get it, or vote YES for one of those Cheesecake
proposals :) .

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 112
  Subject:  Gumball
Initiator:  this is not a name
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Tue, Aug 27, 1996, 19:40 EDT)

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

On 27 Aug 1996, snowgod posted a message reading in part:

>I am placing the gumball in my armpit, hoping to soften it up
>so that I may chew it more easily when the proper time comes.

This constitutes illegal manipulation of the gumball, which is a
Protected entity.

Suggested Penalty:

I recommend a penalty of A$20.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

I judge CFCJ 112 to be TRUE. Snowgod has indeed broken the law by
manipulating a protected entity in an illegal manner.

Actual Penalty:

Snowgod will go to Gaol for 6 days or until the end of the cycle,
whichever comes first.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 19:44:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 269 (Habeous Corpus)

breadbox failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.  I have three days
to deadbeat him, and P 1156 is due tomorrow, so I guess I can wait on
that; the question is, which version of the rule would hold sway in
three days.  I'll worry about that later.  Anyway,

Aug 29 19:45 EDT: -10 breadbox: failed to respond to CFJ 269

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 269
  Subject: Harfy Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Pascal (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Breadbox (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Aug 29, 1996, 19:45h New York Time)

Statement:

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.  Section (ii) of R 514 *appeared*
to introduce a broad class of contracts which were enforceable, where
section (iii) *appeared* to introduce a qualifier to restrict the pool
of which contracts in (ii) were actually enforceable.  Beacause the
apparantly qualifiying section was not joined by "unless", "except if",
"and", or "otherwise", the paradox rendering was found "to be more
reasonable than the non-paradox reading".

R 1112.1 *appears*, in a sentence, to introduce broad conditions under
which a proposal may be declared Harfy, where the following sentence
*appears* to introduce a qualifier to restrict the pool of which proposals
may be declared Harfy.  Beacause the apparantly qualifiying sentence is
not joined by "unless", "except if", "and", or "otherwise", the paradox
rendering must be found "to be more reasonable than the non-paradox
reading".

CFJ 256 only showed the paradox for a subclass of contracts (Blue Cross
contracts), as this only shows the paradox for a subclass of proposals
(those in excess of three, or those by the Harfmeister (see below; I
didn't want to submit a second CFJ for that case, just as ThinMan
did not submit a second CFJ 256 for Silver Stripes)).

The fact that one is couched in prosiac sentences and the other in
sections should hold no sway whatsoever.  If it does, we've got bigger
problems.  All the section designations in the old R 514 do is add
whitespace.

I also point out another self-inconsistent section of the rule (proposals
submitted by the Harfmeister, alluded to above), which will arrive at the
same paradox:

> The Harfmeister may not designate his or her own proposals as Harfy

Upon a verdict of TRUE, the initiator will win in accordance with R 219.

Pascal's Comments:

Hrm. Although I really think the answer to this is FALSE, I'll have to
decline judgement; I'm not sure I know precedent and the rules well enough
to decide this one completely accurately.

To me, the first paragraph simply says _who_ can make proposals harfy and
_how_ e does; It is not a generalization, but two restrictions, and the next
paragraph is simply another, as well as the one disallowing
auto-harfydesignation.

That's just my reading of the rules, tho'...

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 20:08:46 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate Seat Name

I name my senate seat "Sinecure 33".

- --      Mike Epstein            "Was it you or your brother who
      [email-masked]           was killed in the war?"
  *                      *                    --William Spooner
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 22:35:47 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Senate Seat 

I name my Senate seat "Melvin".

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #199
*******************************