Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #217
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, September 10 1996      Volume 01 : Number 217

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 19:48:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fat Lady

The Fat Lady is singing.  The cycle lasted less than 30 days.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 19:59:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 279 (Niccolo Flychuck)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 279
  Subject: Temporal Justice
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Sep 09, 1996, 19:58h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

If a CFJ is submitted, and before a verdict is reached, the 
rules pertaining to that CFJ are changed, the CFJ must be judged under 
the ruleset under which it was subitted.

Guy Fawkes' Comments:

With the way CFJ is bouncing about in the midst of rapid-fire 
proposals, I was just curious.  R 215's "then in effect" (when in effect?)
and R 589's "current ruleset" (current at submission or deliverance?) are 
rather ambiguous.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 21:17:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 280 (breadbox)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 280
  Subject: Paradox Wins
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 09, 1996, 21:17h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

After a CFJ of the type described in rule 219 is judged true, the player
who submitted it does not win until the 4 day appeal period passes and
the CFJ is not appealed in that time.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Rule 219 says, in part:

  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 game.

Since it cannot be known whether or not the judgement will be overruled
until its appeal period passes and the CFJ is not appealed, the "then"
clause in the excerpt of rule 219 above cannot be followed until after
the appeal period ends.

I believe we have done this incorrectly with the 3 previous paradox wins,
and that we also now have the machinery in place to legally ignore the
resulting scoring errors, given the time since they occurred.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 21:29:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 280 (breadbox)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call For Judgement 280

> Statement:
> 
> After a CFJ of the type described in rule 219 is judged true, the player
> who submitted it does not win until the 4 day appeal period passes and
> the CFJ is not appealed in that time.

/dev/joe is probably right.  The problem is that game custom indicates 
the interpretation we've been following, because we've been following
it, and you undo the win if it is appealed.  God awful reasoning.

The real problem is that you never know when it will be appealed.  We may
change the rules so that a CFJ 5000 years old can be appealed.  Then
what?  I thought about this when ThinMan won, and I wasn't sure what to
do about it, and then I forgot about it.

Another interpretation is that "it has not been appealed an infintisimal
amount of time after it is delivered, therefore that is when the win
occurs".

No matter how you slice it, it looks like you have to use some sort of
game custom to scope the statute of limitation on appeals.  I guess the
time to appeal as allowed by the rules when it is delivered is reasonable
game custom to establish this scope.

Malenkai
downgraded to netscape 2.0; 3.0 is a dog :(

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

> > 7) Section V requires that the Machine go *ping* at least once every
> >    seven days, regardless of the Machine's Truth.  This is not
> >    paradoxical, because the proposal does not prevent the Machine
> >    from going *ping* on days other than the ones specified by its
> >    Truth, which is a problem of its own.
> 
> No -- section V requires the Machine go *ping* at least once every
> seven days, which requires that the Truth allow it to.  The Scholar
> is not permitted to lie concerning *ping*'s, and I believe lying is
> a violation of the Truth.

I would have to agree that this section is poorly worded, though
probably not as badly as Thinman has it. It would be better if the
rule stated that the machine will never have a Truth that would
allow it to go *ping* less than once every seven days.

b

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 21:49:13 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official 

To the person(s) it may concern.

I'd like to come back from vacation.

Thanks
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:09:49 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199 

I don'tr mind making the senators represent specific people, but I do not
believe we should do it based on geography.  That is not the best system
for a theoretical game.  Instead, if we want to tie the senators to the
people, let's do it with something interesting and unique.

For instance:
Each player chooses a number between one and 4 (and sends their choice
privately to the speaker) - This becomes thier group number.  Then each
senator announces (publically) his choice of a number between one and 4
(this is his seat number).  The speaker then announces which people are
represented by which senator.

Or

Tying it to a players name, number of proposals, age, wealth or anything
else (especially things that are dynamic so that the number of players a
senator represents will change over time)

- ----------

Also, every once in a while it pops into my head to tie the number of
senate seats to the population of acka (with a minumum of four seats).  Now
might be a good time to do that if someone is working on a proposal.

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: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 23:47:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: R 491 rewrite?

/dev/joe,

	Could you post your submission of your R 491 rewrite publically
so that we can write proposals that will work whether or not it is
accepted or rejected?

Thanks,
Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:29:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: R 491 rewrite?

Malenkai asked:
> 	Could you post your submission of your R 491 rewrite publically
> so that we can write proposals that will work whether or not it is
> accepted or rejected?

I posted it yesterday, in the "2 RFC's" message.  It replaces the "Otherwise,
the rule change is invalid" with several lines of text.  Malenkai does have
a good point; players should start writing proposals to take into account the
possibility of this change coming into effect before their proposals.
This is what the amended rule 491 would say:

A rule change is a description of a game effect.  A rule change is valid
if it describes the creation of a new mutable rule, the amendment of an
existing mutable rule, the repeal of an existing mutable rule, or a change
of the mutability of any rule.  If an accepted proposal does not refer to
amending, repealing, transmuting, or creating rules, then it is treated a
valid rule change to create a new mutable rule with the entire body of the
proposal as its text; this treatment is only applied in the case defined in
this sentence. Rule changes not defined as valid by this rule are invalid.

When a valid rule change is takes effect, at its time of
application, the effect described by the rule change happens. The
adoption of an invalid rule change has no effect.

      A proposal is any collection of text designated as a proposal,
submitted in the proper manner. If a proposal is accepted, any rule
changes in the proposal are applied, one at a time, in the order in which
they appear.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:40:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: R 491 rewrite?

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Rule changes not defined as valid by this rule are invalid.

>       A proposal is any collection of text designated as a proposal,
> submitted in the proper manner. If a proposal is accepted, any rule
> changes in the proposal are applied, one at a time, in the order in which
> they appear.

So the implicit assumption is that sentences such as "This is a Modest
Proposal" and other preamble language are invalid rule changes, unless
a proposal reads as follows?:

This is a Modest Proposal.

All players have 5 points added to their score every Thursday.

In this case, would the entire text become the new rule?  In the following
case, would the intended effect happen?:

This is a Modest Proposal.

Create a new rule reading:

All players have 5 points added to their score every Thursday.

Malenkai
BTW, you have a typo in the version you posted, I believe you are missing
the word "as" in the part you changed.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #217
*******************************