Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #205
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, September 4 1996     Volume 01 : Number 205

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 01:23:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harfmeister

I am declaring P 1173 Harfy. 

Malenkai
Harfmeister

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:35:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess - NAP Swinger

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> Malenkai
> Speaker
> Acting Gaoler
> Acting NAP Swinger
> negligent CotC
>
I believe Bascule is on vacation  as well, which would mean that you're
also actign FUN Swinger

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:37:46 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 272 (Mellon)

We really need a verdict on this one. So Mellon , please respond and post
a verdict as soon as possible.
Niccolo Flychuck 
Chess-Umpire

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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 thesame
> 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: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:54:18 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar

Breadbox is back from Vacation.
De'ghew, as Malenkai pointed is On-ice, and has in fact been so for a
couple of days.

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:08:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 (snowgod)

On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 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.
>
Once the initial pieces are picked, there is no issue. The Party Chess
rules specify that when a Swinger doesn't perform her turn within four
days, it defaults to a pass. So if an acing Swinger does not play, for
whatever reason, e will simply be passed over.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 02:11:50 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation 

	I am going on vacation for a period of 5 days.

I will return from vacation before my sentence in the gaol is over.  Please
note that I am not going anywhere, and I'll be reading and responding to my
mail every day.  Just seems that since I'm stuck in a cell that looks like
a little red matchbox I'll relax and enjoy myself :)

And, Oh yeah, I'll post what pheobe says when I get out!

snowgod
vacationting in gaol

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 08:48:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 (snowgod)

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Once the initial pieces are picked, there is no issue. The Party Chess
> rules specify that when a Swinger doesn't perform her turn within four
> days, it defaults to a pass. So if an acing Swinger does not play, for
> whatever reason, e will simply be passed over.

It seems like an issue to me.  I personally would not find the game
enjoyable if some of the other players were not permitted to move due to
circumstances completely unrelated to the game, like the acting officer
thing.

The way I understand the rules of party chess, and I have not studied this
too deeply, I admit, it looks like you can take out an acting swinger in
2 moves if this is not changed, and they cannot move to defend themselves.
I don't know about PC, but this does not seem good for the game of Acka in
general.

Malenkai
BTW, we need a magic potato assignment

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:15:05 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 (snowgod)

On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> It seems like an issue to me.  I personally would not find the game
> enjoyable if some of the other players were not permitted to move due to
> circumstances completely unrelated to the game, like the acting officer
> thing.
> 
> The way I understand the rules of party chess, and I have not studied this
> too deeply, I admit, it looks like you can take out an acting swinger in
> 2 moves if this is not changed, and they cannot move to defend themselves.
> I don't know about PC, but this does not seem good for the game of Acka in
> general.

In that case I'm looking forward for your fix.
and I never intended to oppose it in the first place, it's a good fix for
reasons besides PartyChess as well.
> 
> Malenkai
> BTW, we need a magic potato assignment
>
Will do, will get my magic dice out and perform the deed.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:22:36 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: registrar - Magic Potato

The holder of the Magic Potato this week is -  

Pascal  !!!

Niccolo Flychuck
 Registrar

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:02:12 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

Proposal 1176 - Tue Sep 03 12:02:12 EDT 1996
Fix acting Swingers
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

I.Append the following text to R726
"When any Swinger except for the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation, it is the 
duty of the Swinger's Party to appoint another member of the Party as 
acting Swinger. If it is not possible to appoint an acting Swinger, 
within three days of the begining of eir Vacation, then 
the Swinger's office is declared to be a Warm office, until either the 
Swinger returns from Vacation, or it becomes possible to another Party 
member to assume the role f acting Swinger, or the Swinger is Impeached.
When the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation the Speaker shall appoint a 
non-aligned player to take over the NAP-Swinger's duties. If the Speaker 
is non-aligned, he may assume the role of NAP-Swinger himself. If it is 
not possible to appoint an acting NAP-Swinger
 within three days of the begining of eir Vacation, 
then the office of the NAP 
Swinger is declared to be a Warm office until either the NAP-Swinger 
returns from Vacation, or it becomes possible to appoint another player 
as acting NAP-Swinger, or the NAP Swinger is Impeached.

This rule takes precedence over R457. Within the rule, every sentence 
takes precedence over the sentence before it."

II.Append to R991 section 2 H the following text:
"with the following exceptions:
a. With the exception that if a Swinger goes on Vacation during eir turn, 
then eir turn is extended by two additional days.
b. If a Swinger's office is Warm, then their turn is skipped entirely and 
considered to be a Pass.
"
{{[This solves a problem that had not occured to me up to now. Currently,
when a Swinger goes on Vacation, an acting Swinger should be appointed,
regardless of Party Affiliation. This ammendment fixes that and also
provides for a case where there is no acting Swinger]}}

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:02:30 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1177

Proposal 1177 - Tue Sep 03 12:02:30 EDT 1996
A small fix for Characters that represent PartyChessPieces
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

Append the following text to R990 section 3 A v. :
"For the purpose of this rule, a lower case Latin letter is considered
identical to its corresponding upper case Latin letter."

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:02:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1178

Proposal 1178 - Tue Sep 03 12:02:48 EDT 1996
Compensating for the fact that we are a vacation club anyway
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 609, so that section (iv) reads in full:

      (iv)  Acting Officers:

             The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player
             serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity.  In such
             a case, the Player is responsible for performing all
             of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges
             of the Office, except for Privileges which are also
             explicitly defined to be Duties by the rules, or Privileges
             required to perform explicitly defined Duties, or Privileges
             of the office when the Acting officer is filling in for a
             vacationing player. For any given Seat, there can be
             an "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant.

{{[the original concept of acting officers was for impeachments, and
the privilege distinction made sense.  With so much vacation, however, we
have to move on and let the acting officers do their full job, and
get paid, without this duty/privilege headache]}}

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 12:04:38 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1179

Proposal 1179 - Tue Sep 03 12:04:37 EDT 1996
The Evolution of Cooperation
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

{{[the title of this proposal is taken from a book by Axelrod, which
is worth reading for anyone interested in Prisoner's Dilemna stuff.  
What relavence it has here is marginal, I guess, but I like it.

In any case, the Vulcan party spent A$275 to try to repeal the Gnome
last time around; perhaps their pockets are still deep.  This comes
from an idea Wayne had were we should recycle rules, and since I like
my Goose proposal so much, I shall propose it as a replacement for the
gnome (which has problems).  I've always wanted to try this bi-partisan
thing, to see what happens.  I'll even kick in some bucks to the cause.
I note that "repeal the gnome" came within one vote of passing last 
time, and "chartreuse goose" came within 2 or 3.  It will be interesting
to see what happens]}}
 
- ------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal R 355, "The Voting Gnome"

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

Create a new rule entitiled "Chartreuse Goose", reading:

Let the Chartreuese Goose exist, it is a unique entity. Initially
it is Somewhere Else. It may only be possessed by one player at a
time.

A player who possesses the Chartreuse Goose may not win the cycle
or game. This clause takes precedence over R 219, R 422, and any other
mutable rule which establishes winning conditions.

The Chartreuse Goose (hereafter called "Goose") is transferred as specified
below. Other rules may specify other ways for it to be transferred.

The term "paradox win CFJ", as used in the following, means any CFJ
with a statement in its reasoning similar to the following: "Upon a
verdict of TRUE, the initiator wins the cycle in accordance with R 219".

Conditions upon which the Goose is transferred:

1) Upon a verdict of FALSE on a paradox win CFJ, the initiator of the CFJ
receives the Goose from wherever it is.

2) Upon a verdict on a paradox win CFJ being overturned to TRUE, the
Goose goes Somewhere Else, if and only if the player possessing it was
the initiator of the CFJ in question. Immediately afterwords, that player
is declared the winner of the cycle.

All of the following actions must be announced publically if they are
performed:

3) A player who has possessed the Goose for at least one week may pay
A$200 to the Treasury and cause it to go Somewhere Else.

4) A player who has possessed the Goose for at least 30 days may pay
A$75 to the Treasury and transfer the Goose to the single player with the
lowest score. The player receiving the Goose receives A$75 from the
Treasury. This option is not available if more than one player has the
lowest score.

5) A player who possesses the Goose may pay A$350 to the Treasury and
transfer it to any other player of their choice.

6) A player possessing a Chartreuse Goose Egg may take the Goose off the
hands of any player who possesses it, provided the Goose owner
agrees to the transaction, and pays a mutually agreed upon amount
of currency (of at least A$50) to the Treasury. The Egg owner will
receive from the Treasury the same amount that the Goose owner payed in,
as compensation.

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

Amend R 219 to read in full:

If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the
legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if some
action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call for
judgement on a statement to that effect. Such a call for judgement must
contain in its reasoning a statement to the effect that the initiator
is claiming a win in accordance with R 219, on a verdict of true.
 
If the statement is judged true, and the judgement is not overruled, then
the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the cycle.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 268 (breadbox)

> 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)

I accept the appointment.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:53:30 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
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

I would personally prefer that a player in the Gaol cannot be selected for
judgement.  It seems a little unfair to other (law-abiding) players to
allow criminals (such as illegal gumball manipulators and errant senators
who don't practice restraint with their letters) to dictate game custom to
law abiding citizens while they are being punished.

snowgod

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: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:38:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1176 - Tue Sep 03 12:02:12 EDT 1996
> Fix acting Swingers
> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

First of all, I thought of another loophole along these lines in party
chess, assuming CFJ 275 is judged TRUE:

It becomes swinger X's turn.
24 hours pass.
player Y submits an impeachment paper against swinger X.
at this point, swinger X cannot move (assuming CFJ 275 true), and they
   can be taken out.

my fix does not fix this; it only pertains to privileges for acting
officers who are acting because of *vacation*.

I do not have a wonderful fix for this, but I believe one is necessary.

From the proposal:
 
> This rule takes precedence over R457. Within the rule, every sentence
> takes precedence over the sentence before it."

This is unnecessary, and clutters the issue.  R 457 defers to other rules
which establish alternate procedures for appointing acting officers.  As
for the second sentence, that should be fixed soon.

> II.Append to R991 section 2 H the following text:
> "with the following exceptions:
> a. With the exception that if a Swinger goes on Vacation during eir turn,
> then eir turn is extended by two additional days.

This leads to the potential of infinite filibustering by a swinger, and
is the real problem with this proposal.

> b. If a Swinger's office is Warm, then their turn is skipped entirely and
> considered to be a Pass.

What if they are in check?  Is this the pass while in check is a surrender
still?  This is where the acting/vacation problems come in.  Has this
been fixed?  I admit no fix is obvious, in fact, I believe that no fix is
possible.  This would not bother me if the "Law of Party Gravity" did not
exist.  But it does exist.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 18:43:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Vacation

I have always believed that vacation should be just that, not a tool for
playing the game. Ie, it should not be used as a way to filibuster, avoid
duties, etc.

Codifying this notion seems difficult, if not impossible.
Does anyone agree?  Does anyone have any ideas?  Does anyone care? :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 19:04:41 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

>What if they are in check?  Is this the pass while in check is a surrender
>still?  This is where the acting/vacation problems come in.  Has this
>been fixed?  I admit no fix is obvious, in fact, I believe that no fix is
>possible.  This would not bother me if the "Law of Party Gravity" did not
>exist.  But it does exist.

Perhaps redefining being a Swinger as something other than an officer 
would help. After all, they are more officers of their parties than of 
Ackanomic. It doesn't make sense, for example, for them to be able to be 
impeached, except by procedures set forth in their own party policy.

- --      Mike Epstein            "I want to speak about the future, 
    [email-masked]         because that's the direction we're
  *                      *       headed in." 
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/                            --Bob Dole

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:10:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >What if they are in check?  Is this the pass while in check is a surrender
> >still?  This is where the acting/vacation problems come in.  Has this
> >been fixed?  I admit no fix is obvious, in fact, I believe that no fix is
> >possible.  This would not bother me if the "Law of Party Gravity" did not
> >exist.  But it does exist.
> 
> Perhaps redefining being a Swinger as something other than an officer
> would help. After all, they are more officers of their parties than of
> Ackanomic. It doesn't make sense, for example, for them to be able to be
> impeached, except by procedures set forth in their own party policy.

I agree.  I also am of the opinion that a party should not be required
to have a swinger if they do not wish to.

BTW, did you officially change your email address to the one you are
currently using, or is it temporary, or do you have forwarding or MX
resolution so that it doesn't matter?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:21:15 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Vacation 

>I have always believed that vacation should be just that, not a tool for
>playing the game. Ie, it should not be used as a way to filibuster, avoid
>duties, etc.
>
>Codifying this notion seems difficult, if not impossible.
>Does anyone agree?  Does anyone have any ideas?  Does anyone care? :)
>
>Malenkai

I agree with the concept here.  A vacation should not be used to avoid
duties, etc.  However, codifying this may be next to impossible.  Perhaps
the best thing to with it would be to have a witchhunt/inquistion type
scenario.  If one player thinks another player is making an improper use of
vacations he may call for a vote, etc.

It's clumsy, but I think that this has to be a discretionary type of thing.

snowgod
Vacationing in Gaol
Waiting to get out so I can drive my BMW up and down Yellow Roosevelt Avenue

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 19:24:46 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

Malenkai wrote:
>BTW, did you officially change your email address to the one you are
>currently using, or is it temporary, or do you have forwarding or MX
>resolution so that it doesn't matter?

It's all the same.

tinan

- --      Mike Epstein            "If the facts don't fit the theory,
    [email-masked]         change the facts."
  *                      *                       --Albert Einstein
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:35:21 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Interactivity.

Maybe you spivs have discussed this way back when sometime.  With the demise
of the Nomic MUD, there hasn't been much interactivity as far as I can tell
in the Nomic world.  It just so happens that I have "wizard" permissions on
a little known, little used MOO server.  In fact, it is rarely inhabited by
more than myself and a couple of my friends.  Is there any interest in
performing some of the nomic functions in such an environment?  

I figure the email pace and culture is pretty well engrained in this game,
but thought maybe you all would be interested in an Ackanomic "meeting
place".

IdiotBoy	
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:51:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 272 Verdict

CFJ 272 has been judged TRUE.

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.

Mellon's reasoning:

Malenkai have already done all the work for me in his verdict of CFJ
271,
I just had to check and verify his reasoning there:

[...]

> 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.

[etc...]

I agree with Malenkai. And the statement in the quote is equivalent with
the one I'm asked to judge, so my verdict is TRUE.

/Mellon

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:54:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 274 Verdict

CFJ 274 has been judged FALSE.

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]

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Here are what appear to be the relevant sections of the rules:

>From rule 710/5 ("Criminal Justice"):        7a) Upon a verdict of TRUE, the judge may retain or alter the
        recommended penalty. The result will become the actual penalty. [...]

        8b) If a TRUE verdict is not upheld on an appeal, any penalties,
        except SENTENCE, are reversed [...].

>From rule 569/10 ("Overturning Judgements):

        [...] The Court is under no obligation to consider such material, and
        should use normal procedures to determine a verdict.

        The Supreme Court must then decide the case and return its verdict
        within one week. With the verdict of a majority of the Justices being
        the verdict of the Court. [...]

The rules do not explicitly provide for the Supreme Court to modify a
sentence when it upholds a TRUE CFCJ verdict, but it is possible that such
a provision is implicit.

This judge finds rule 569 relevant to the question only in that it
establishes the terminology that a Supreme Court decision is a "verdict."
Based on this, one could argue that the situation described in the CFJ
statement satisfies the condition of R710, section 7a.

What would be the effect of that, however?  R710, sec. 7a says that "the
judge" may retain or alter the suggested penalty.  It makes no reference
to the Supreme Court or to Justices.  There is no provision for the Appellate
Court to set a different penalty, but perhaps the original judge would have
the option to modify the sentence.  Thankfully, I am not required to decide
that question.

On the other hand, R710 sets out specific procedures to be performed if
a TRUE verdict is overturned on appeal.  R710 therefore claims sufficient
scope to resolve questions concerning results of CFCJ appeals.

Decision:

I find no wording among the rules that would allow the Supreme Court or
any other appellate court to modify the original penalty assessed on a CFCJ
without overturning the decision.  I therefore find the CFCJ False.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:57:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 273 Verdict

CFJ 273 has been judged TRUE.

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.

Habeous Corpus' reasoning:

Both possibilities raised in ThinMan's Statement and Reasoning are
equally TRUE.  Bond Cycles are independant of Game Cycles (ref. R666
para. h and j).  Therefore,  the two week cycles always start and end on
a Monday.  Hence the the Statement is judged TRUE.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:59:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 272 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> CFJ 272 has been judged TRUE.  
> Robin Hood did not purchase any PartyChessPieces before this CFJ was
> submitted.

Would the Financier and Chess-Umpire please reverse this transaction.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 20:06:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 113 Verdict

CFCJ 113 has been judged TRUE.  I'll let the Acting Gaoler worry about
the timing of the penalty.

Penalty:

A TRANSFERENCE of court costs, plus punitive damages of 2*(court costs)
to the initiator.  The Financier will report a transfer of A$60 from
this is not a name to snowgod.

A SENTENCE of 2 days in the Gaol for this is not a name, suspended until
such time as another CFCJ judgement or TRUE is returned against this is
not a name.

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

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

The written argument of snowgod is impeccable.  By rules 1130 and 570, I
am compelled to return a judgement of TRUE.

Actual Penalty:

A TRANSFERENCE of court costs, plus punitive damages of 2*(court costs)
to the initiator.  The Financier will report a transfer of A$60 from
this is not a name to snowgod.

A SENTENCE of 2 days in the Gaol for this is not a name, suspended until
such time as another CFCJ judgement or TRUE is returned against this is
not a name.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:33:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interactivity.

Idiotboy wrote:
> Maybe you spivs have discussed this way back when sometime.  With the demise
> of the Nomic MUD, there hasn't been much interactivity as far as I can tell
> in the Nomic world.  It just so happens that I have "wizard" permissions on
> a little known, little used MOO server.  In fact, it is rarely inhabited by
> more than myself and a couple of my friends.  Is there any interest in
> performing some of the nomic functions in such an environment?  
> 
> I figure the email pace and culture is pretty well engrained in this game,
> but thought maybe you all would be interested in an Ackanomic "meeting
> place".

We already have the IRC server on wilma.  Hardly anybody ever goes there.
Only 4 times in the last 3 weeks did anybody go there, and never were there
two people on at once so it wasn't very interesting.  There have been times
in the past when we have had a decent group there of 4 or 5 people.  After
Malenkai's paradox win, we tried to have the constitutional convention there
(before we realized that the rule which tried to do this didn't claim
sufficient precedence to do so, or was in a mutable/immutable inconsistency,
or otherwise just didn't work), but for some unexplained reason tinan was
unable to connect.

Maybe if I remind everyone, they'll start using it again.  I don't know that
the most recent new players know about it; I had been telling the new
players along with the other information that I sent out to the new
players as registrar.

Point your IRC client to wilma.che.utexas.edu port 9942.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 20:40:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interactivity.

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

> We already have the IRC server on wilma.  Hardly anybody ever goes there.
> Only 4 times in the last 3 weeks did anybody go there, and never were there
> two people on at once so it wasn't very interesting.  There have been times
> in the past when we have had a decent group there of 4 or 5 people.

I haven't been going there because people haven't been going there.  Its
the reverse of Soul Asylum's "Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd".
I'll go to either if we have town meetings scheduled like we once did 
(ie, people are going to be there).

As for actual gameplay over IRC or via a MUD, we talked about that a long
time ago, and it seemed that such was not possible due to the large
time zone difference amongst the players, and the need to commit to a
certain time.

I would not invest time in the MUD until it could offer what IRC can not,
and until such was needed, but I'll show up for anything.  I'd actually
like to go in more of a VRML direction if alot of work is going to be done.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #205
*******************************