Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #204
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, September 3 1996      Volume 01 : Number 204

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 09:41:30 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: PartyChess stuff

The table version of the home page is now the officia PartyChess home page
 is now the official PartyChess home page

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

The Swingers are now listed in playing order.

Except for the two Swingers on Vacation, all the Swingers have picked
their starting pieces. 

Malenkai - according to R457, the duties of offices held by players on
vacation are performed by the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker.
Two Swingers are on vacation, and acting Swingers should be appointed.

All other PartyChess specific stuff is posted on the acka-chess list.

Niccolo Flychuck

Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:12:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: mentor for Bash (this is not a name)

this is not a name has been chosen as a mentor for Bash

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 96 04:24:10 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: mentor for Bash (this is not a name)

>this is not a name has been chosen as a mentor for Bash

I accept, however, I don't have Bash's email address. Can someone give it 
to me?

Thanks,
tinan

- --      Mike Epstein            "Tact is the ability to describe others
    [email-masked]         as they see themselves."
  *                      *                            --Abraham Lincoln
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:26:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: mentor for Bash (this is not a name)

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, this is not a name wrote:

> >this is not a name has been chosen as a mentor for Bash
> 
> I accept, however, I don't have Bash's email address. Can someone give it 
> to me?
it's
[email-masked]

> 
> Thanks,
> tinan
> 
> --      Mike Epstein            "Tact is the ability to describe others
>   [email-masked]         as they see themselves."
> *                      *                            --Abraham Lincoln
> http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 00:35:57 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Whamiol 

Has HC been awarded the points for Breadbox and Bash (due to his Whamiol
ownership)?

Just curious,
snowgod
gaoling

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 10:53:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Whamiol

> Has HC been awarded the points for Breadbox and Bash (due to his Whamiol
> ownership)?

I had forgotten to put up Bash's points until today, but yes.  (Also -- 
Idiotboy.)  Breadbox was in the previous cycle.  Due to Habeous submitting
some failed proposals and a "frivolous" appeal, he still has a negative
score despite 30 Whamiol points (but he's no longer gnome buddy).

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

BTW, somebody needs to announce that tinan is late in delivering Phoebe's
speech.  Rule 1089.2 specifically says that the Scorekeeper can't post
a message which triggers such score changes.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 18:56:09 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Where is my Silly Vacation Hat?

This morning when I woke up, and was going to cook my breakfast,
I noted that something was different. I could just not think of
what it was.

Now I've been going around the whole day, and finally I know what
it is!

It is 14 days since I returned from vacation, and my Silly Vacation
Hat was disintegrated by rule 937/2 while I was still asleep.

I miss it very much, and thinking of going on a new vacation, just
so I can get a new hat.

Mellon,
missing the Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:04:34 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pheoebe

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 
> BTW, somebody needs to announce that tinan is late in delivering Phoebe's
> speech.  Rule 1089.2 specifically says that the Scorekeeper can't post
> a message which triggers such score changes.
> 
I guess that's up to me, amd yes /dev/joe is correct. tinan is late in
posting what phoebe said, and loses 6 points.

As to what happens to phoebe now - just read my Fleas post.

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:58:16 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Live From Gaol 

So I'm sitting here in the gaol, playing solitaire nomic (which the Gaoler
has so graciously left a copy of in each cell), and thinking to myself this
isn't really so bad.  Kinda nice.  Finally gives me chance to get a little
peace and quite (you can't hear the fat lady singing from in here, you
know).

And I'm wondering, what happened to CFCJ 112, which was assigned to Pascal,
oh, say 4 or 5 days ago, but I'm not to worried about it, because when
tinan has to confine himself to a cell my peace and quite wil be over.
Probably end up being cell mates with him.  :)

Lord knows how he rambles on and on.  I'll never be able to sleep.

Then only thing I'm iffey about, being in Gaol and all, is not being able
to propose stuff, or vote. but then I think to myself "Hell, I'll just
pretend I'm having my own little festival of Torkola, and the rest of you
aren't invited!"

gaoling,
snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:13:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: registrar - new observer

A new observer has joined us - 

Drora Bruck - her e-mail is [email-masked]

We welcome her to ackanomic

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 17:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: %&*@&?!

I hereby take myself off vacation. My apologies to the postmaster.

(My sysadmin suffered a back injury hours after muppetlabs went
offline and was unable to go in and fix the problem until he had
sufficiently healed. I am extremely disappointed that I blew my first
appointment, especially as I had strong feelings about the "Harfy
Paradox," and would have been more than happy to accept judgeship. So
it goes.)

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 21:09:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess - NAP Swinger

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> Hello tinan,
> Brinjal, the NAP Swinger is on vacation. so far the Speaker has not
> appointed an acting NAP Swinger so we can assume that he intends to act in
> that capacity himself.

[I acknowledge quoting a private message]

Circumstances beyond the Speaker's control prevented the Speaker from
having access to the internet since Friday morning.  I apologize for
the delay, and will get to all my duties, including appointments, promply.

I have scanned my email, and it doesn't look that bad.  I do note that
tinan improperly acted as acting Gaoler (Locations made the Gaoler a
non-Functional office).

I see the Coup failed :(

Malenkai
Speaker
Acting Gaoler
Acting NAP Swinger
negligent CotC

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 21:18:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 269 Verdict

CFJ 269 has been judged FALSE. :(

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'...

Habeous Corpus' Reasoning:

I almost let Malenkai get away with this one.  If e had not added that
last qualifier - "if three other such proposals are currently designated
as Harfy".

Malenkai attempts to parallel Rule 1112 with Rule 514.  I find this
reasoning faulty;  R1112 only states "proposals currently under
consideration" without specifying the number or any other conditions.  I
take this to mean that previously resolved proposals and RFC's and
non-proposal statements,  etc. are excluded from being considered Harfy.
If R1112 had stated something like "all rules in the current voting que"
or an equivalent,  then I could have agreed with eir reasoning.  R514 was
specific about what was a "valid Contract" then contradicted itself
outright in the next section.
  
I have no problem with Malenkai's reasoning that there is no semantic or
systemic difference between a "numbered section",  paragraph,  or
successive sentence.  But since the earlier sentence did nothing to
specifically include "all" proposals in the voting que,  I must assume
that a direct modifier following immediately afterward is valid without
the necessity of a qualifying term such as "except" or "but".

Malenkai's second point was very relevant,  in that  it does establish a
exclusionary condition not previously establish or qualified.  This could
indeed be interpreted to result in a paradox.  Unfortunately,  Malenkai's
Statement was specific in detailing the condition for determining the
paradox;  one which does not hold up in this judge's opinion.  If eir
Statement had included the exclusionary language as explicitly as it
spelled out the other,  I might have seen it eir way.

Based on the content of the Statement and the argument supporting that
Statement only,  this CFJ is Judged FALSE.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 21:31:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 272 (Mellon)

breadbox failed to respond before he was placed on vacation, but while
his e-mail was bouncing, and is a deadbeat judge.

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 272
  Subject: Party Chess Purchases
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Habeous Corpus (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: snowgod (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: breadbox (failed to respond)
4th Judge: Mellon (selected Sep 02, 1996, 21:33h New York Time)
 
Statement:
 
Robin Hood did not purchase any PartyChessPieces before this CFJ was
submitted.

Niccolo Flychuck's reasoning:

Basically, the same reasoning for CFJ 271. Note that this is not the same
statement as CFJ 271, and it also requests that the judge make a decision
about the situation at the Robin Hood made his declaration. By the the
time this is distributed Robin Hood might well decide again to make a
pruchase, and I only want to clear up the situation one way or another, I
really don't care which way it goes, I just want to be clear on this.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 21:49:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 273 (Habeous Corpus)

Robin Hood failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.

Sep 02 21:50 EDT: -10 Robin Hood: Failed to respond to CFJ 273

Habeous Corpus 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 (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Sep 02, 1996, 21:50h 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: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:01:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 268 (breadbox)

Wayne failed to deliver a verdict in the 7 day time limit.
 
Sep 02 22:01 EDT: -10 Wayne: failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 268

breadbox 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 (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Wayne (failed to deliver verdict)
3rd Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 02, 1996, 22:01h 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: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:14:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 113 (IdiotBoy)

Pascal failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.

Sep 02 22:13 EDT: -10 Pascal: failed to respond to CFCJ 113

IdiotBoy has been selected to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment. I assume the financier has
already noted snowgod's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 113
  Subject:  Those Freeze-Dried Otters
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Pascal (failed to respond)
2nd Judge:  IdiotBoy (selected Mon, Sep 02, 1996, 22:13 EDT)

Statement:

this is not a name has broken the Rules

snowgod's Reasoning:

R1130 (Senate Seat Names) requires each senator to rename thier senate seat
to one which is interesting.  It goes on to stipulate that said interesting
name must fulfill the same criterion as a legal Player Name.

R570, which regulates legal Player Names, states:

>The Name must consist of at least three, and no more
>than twenty alphanumerical characters. All nomic business
>must use the Name when referring to a specific player.

this is not a name has, unwisely it seems, given his senate seat the
amusing, though illegal, name of "seven freeze dried otters".  This name
has 25 alphanumeric characters (including the spaces), and is clearly in
violation of R1130.

suggested penalty:

a sentence in the Gaol of 2 days for this is not a name -and- the
transference of A$100 from this is not a name to snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:25:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 274 (ThinMan)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 274
  Subject: CFCJ Appeals
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 02, 1996, 22:26h New York Time)
 
Statement:

If a CFCJ is appealed, and a verdict of TRUE is upheld, the appellate 
court may impose a penalty different from the previously imposed penalty.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

[none - CotC]

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 22:58:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: p1171

[email-masked] wrote: 

> The wording of R115,  its "meat" if you will,  states that other Rules
> may restrict or prohibit certain _specific_ actions.

Yes, and in so stating such, is deferring to any mutable rule which performs
the restriction.  If immutable rules are not permitted to defer to
mutable rules, it would not matter, I believe, that 115 said it deferred,
unless the thing that prevented deferral was higher numbered than 115
(but you were changing 108).

Thus, R 115 would say anything is permitted.  Mutable rules that restrict
actions would conflict with this (if mutable deferral was dis-permitted),
and all such rules would be toast by R 108.  That is what I was talking
about, and I believe, if it did not crash the game, would make it 
strange.

Malenkai
Running out of loopholes to surf, with no new material passing

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 23:19:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: something with fleas ?

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> I keep having this nagging thought in the back of my mind that someone is
> desperately seeking my attention. It is a most curious thing, it's
> something with fleas, but not the kind you find on a dog.
> It's a different kind of flea - could it be metal or steel?
> 
> Nah, couldn't be, anyway I can't be bothered to deal with steel fleas at
> the moment. People will just have to take care of their hygene.

tinan failed to report what Phoebe said.  I assume the scorekeeper has
already logged this?

Anyway, it seems that while snowgod was chipping away at the bricks of
the Gaol with a plastic spoon, he discovered Phoebe's matchbox instead
of an escape route.

Malenkai
Speaker
In charge of random things

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:12:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 275 (snowgod)

snowgod has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.  I do not
know if it is possible for him to accept or decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 275
  Subject: Acting Swingers
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (selected Sep 03, 1996, 00:14h New York Time)

Statement:

Choosing Party Chess Pieces, and making moves in the game of Party Chess,
are privileges, and not duties, of the Office of Swinger.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The rules are silent on the issue, as least as far as I can tell. To me,
choosing the pieces and playing the game seem more like a privilege than
a duty, that is why I am uncomfortable proceeding in an acting capacity
without a CFJ.

I note that the CFJ can be judged FALSE with one part of the and clause
in the statement being TRUE.  I ask the judge to at least clarify that,
if it is the case; I did not feel like submitting two CFJs.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:21:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

Hopefully I have finished all of my jobs with this post.  If I missed
anything, please let me know.

1) snowgod's Gaol cell is the size of Phoebe's matchbox.  It is red only,
however.  It is cell number 2^31-1.

2) I appoint ThinMan as Acting Gaoler.

3) Party Chess

I have gotten no less than 4 requests to appoint acting swingers.  I
apologize for the delay, but I didn't do *anything* do to external factors.

Anyway, I don't think it matters, as I believe playing Party Chess is a
privilege, and not a duty.  I have submitted both a CFJ and Proposal to
fix this privilege thing.  I may have missed something, however, in which
case retraction exists as an option.

My appointments are:

Robin Hood: Acting NAP Swinger (he bought some pieces, so he is obviously
interested in the game.  I just deadbeated him for CFJ 273, so he will
respond in 4 days anyway, and we have to wait for CFJ 275)

Mellon: Acting FUN Swinger

4) The Registrar should announce that De'ghew is on ice.

Malenkai
Speaker
former Acting Gaoler

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:32:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Hopefully I have finished all of my jobs with this post.  If I missed
> anything, please let me know.

I forgot at least one thing:

I appoint Wayne acting justice for Bascule.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:42:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 (snowgod)

> snowgod has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.  I do not
> know if it is possible for him to accept or decline.

Argh, we never fixed that, did we?
I think we got stuck trying to decide whether we should make gaoled players
ineligible for being selected as judges, or just let them accept judgement
and judge CFJ's, or if there was even a problem.  Anybody opposed to adding
  "A player in Gaol may accept or decline judgement on CFJ's e has been
   selected to judge, and e may deliver a judgement on CFJ's e has accepted
   judgement on."
to the end of the list of things players in Gaol can do?  I guess this is
an RFC.

Unfortunately, we can't solve the immediate problem by just letting the
criminal out.  He's the president and the Gaoler is on vacation.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 00:47:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 (snowgod)

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > snowgod has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.  I do not
> > know if it is possible for him to accept or decline.
> 
> Argh, we never fixed that, did we?
> I think we got stuck trying to decide whether we should make gaoled players
> ineligible for being selected as judges, or just let them accept judgement
> and judge CFJ's, or if there was even a problem.  Anybody opposed to adding
>   "A player in Gaol may accept or decline judgement on CFJ's e has been
>    selected to judge, and e may deliver a judgement on CFJ's e has accepted
>    judgement on."
> to the end of the list of things players in Gaol can do?  I guess this is
> an RFC.

I would vote for either suggestion.
 
> Unfortunately, we can't solve the immediate problem by just letting the
> criminal out.  He's the president and the Gaoler is on vacation.

My fix would let all acting officers have privileges if they are replacing
a vacationing player, fixing that problem as well (as well as the actual
swinger problem).

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #204
*******************************