Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #241
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, September 17 1996      Volume 01 : Number 241

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:27:22 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels, with all the bells and whistles

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > i. It is impermissible for a Player running for Office to Challenge
> > another Player running for the same Office.
> 
> Why not?  If debates for office get a little out of hand, a duel seems 
> the perfect way to cool off.  As for worrying about the duel results 
> affecting the voting, under the system you have proposed, odds are that 
> the election would be over before the duel.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
It just doesn't seem a very honorable to conduct a campaign. The act of
running for elections is already a sort of competition, and it doesn't
seem right that a two candidates for the same Office engage in Duels.

Would you oppose the proposal for this single clause?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:15:12 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery 

>Your point is more than made clear.  However, I point that while 
>frozenwaterdiety's t-shirts fall well within the scope of R115, the TDR 
>does not.  The function of the t-shirts is merely that they may be sold, 
>and the transfer of A$ is very much a legal action under the rules.

No, the FM is the only legal place for transactions to take place,
entities must be tradeable to be exchanged on the FM, and only those items
that the rules specify are tradeable are tradeable.  Even if snowgod
could "find" entities under the auspices of R115, he could not sell them.

>However, the TDR performs several functions that are outside the bounds 
>of R115.
>
>	1) it creates points
>	2) it destroys rules
>	3) it destroys protected entities
>
>All of these are regulated actions, and therefore fall very much outside 
>the scope of R115.  I think one of the early CFJ's (was it 184?) covered 
>this very neatly.  If the TDR has any legal authority other than R115, 
>let me know.  

You are probably thinking of CFJ 182, which dealt with /dev/joe's attempt
to buy a prosthetic forehead that essentially allowed him to win.  Actually,
you are probably right about this, and the game custom established by CFJ
182 is certainly relevant to the recent entity-creation issue.  /dev/joe
wasn't even going so far out on a limb as the would-be entity scammers --
the PF rule explicitly says that there is an infinite selection of PFs
available.

>I'm not saying it's against the rules to possess the TDR -- it's just 
>that all of the functions you have given it are not under the R115 
>auspices I assume you claim for it.

You are probably incorrect here, however, at least partially.  It may not
be against the rules for me to possess my TDR, but it is impossible for me
to "find" it according to your reasoning.  The point is, if the TDR has
the properties I specified then it has them, period.  If it cannot have
them, then I cannot have "found" the TDR, for the TDR cannot exist.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:21:17 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PF Quotes

Buying:

PFHabeous (20 @ A$100)  [small drop in price]
PFbreadbox (25 @ A$50)  [still a good deal]
PFThinMan (10 @ A$80)   [how high can this one go?]
PFsnowgod  (10 @ A$50)  [would be hirer except for the PFGuy trade a while
back]
PFNiccolo (10 @ A$50)   [back on the list -- lots of activity in the next
cycle]

Selling:

PFIdiotBoy (30 @ (A$300 || 30 PFWayne || 45 PFGuy))  [settling down after
healthey sales]
PFMalenkai (10 @ A$175) [lots of jockeying to find the right price point for
this one]

Don't forget, you have 2 full weeks until maturity, again
IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:34:37 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict 

Bascule wrote:
>> > CFJ 289 has been judged TRUE.  I guess snowgod is out of business.
>> > 
>> > Clerk of the Courts
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Call For Judgement 289
>> >   Subject: Timeless Existance of Acka-Entities
>> > 
>> > No Ackanomic entities other than the initial Rules, and possibly the
>> > initial players (if they are considered Ackanomic entities), existed
>> > at the beginning of the game.
>> > 
>> > ThinMan's Reasoning:
>> > 
>> > The rules do not say one way or the other, but it makes abundant sense
>> > to me that everything started from the initial Rules and players alone.
>> > Call it the spirit of the game.
>> > 
>> > Robin Hood's Reasoning:
>> > 
>> > I agree entirely with ThinMan's reasoning, and pass a verdict of TRUE
>> > 
>>      
>> Of course, this judgement doesn't prevent the existance of other 
>> entities which predate the game. Rules can not be retroactively
>> changed but nothing prevents other game effects from preceeding their
>> cause. CFJ's do change the state of the game retroactively. 
>>  Once rules create timeless entities they have always existed
>> although they hadn't before. The Rules are actually
>> atemporal unlike us, I see no paradox here.
>> 
>>      Robin Hood
>
>I agree with Robin Hood's rather clever response completely. However, 
>were I not a Justice, I would appeal this verdict sooner than I would 
>accept a gift of many ackadollars, and maybe sooner, since rule 730 
>says: "Phoebe is a nomic entity that was created thousands of years 
>ago by Acka-scientists ...", and I believe that Acka exists for only 
>one year, or maybe two, but definately not thousands. Furthermore, a 
>judgement must be in accordance with the rules "then in effect", and 
>rule 730 was most definately in effect at the time of this verdict, 
>unless your watch is broken.
>
>Any ordinary citizen can see that ThinMan must have lost his marbles
>to submit such a CFJ, since only a fool and a liar would claim that
>Phoebe has not existed for so long as we can remember, and maybe
>longer. Furthermore, ThinMan says that his CFJ "makes abundant
>sense", and yet many things that seem to make plenty of sense make
>no sense whatever in this game, such as CFJ 181, and CFJ 207.  

Bascule is correct that some things that seem to make sense in this
game (and elsewhere) do not make sense at all.  However, I object to
his claim that I "must have lost [my] marbles."  Indeed, I believe
he called me a fool an a liar, and I will give him a chance to
apologize before I call a politeness moon.

Furthermore, I disagree in part, with those of Robin Hood's comments that
Bascule has endorsed.  I need only refer to Rule 106 (immutable)
which says, in part, "No rule may generate any effect that applies
retroactively to a time before the generation of the effect. A rule
change may not have any effects retroactive to before the time of its
application."  We cannot have any rules that create timeless entities
unless we first change or repeal rule 106.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:44:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict 

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>frozenwaterdiety may not be out of business after all.  Did he say the 
>t-shirts were *Ackanomic* entities.  I see nothing against the rules 
>against selling extranomic entities.

That borders on sophistry.  If an entity has its sole existence in the
context of Ackanomic, then it is an Ackanomic entity.  frozenwaterdiety
may indeed have real world T-shirts made up according to his design, but
he has not done so.  And even if he did, he could not sell them within
the bounds of the current Ackanomic rules.  Please consult Rule 482,
section II for details.

ThinMan
Financier
getting just a tad annoyed

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:10:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery 

I wrote:
>No, the FM is the only legal place for transactions to take place,
>entities must be tradeable to be exchanged on the FM, and only those items
>that the rules specify are tradeable are tradeable.  Even if snowgod
>could "find" entities under the auspices of R115, he could not sell them.

Oops.  Getting the old and the new forms of rule 482 jumbled together there.
However, I still interpret R 482 to say that snowgod's T-shirts would not
be tradeable if he had them.  In my judgement, non-Tradeable entities may
only be traded or transferred as specified in the rules.  No rules specify
how snowgod's T-shirts may be traded, so they may not be traded at all.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:55:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> No, the FM is the only legal place for transactions to take place,
> entities must be tradeable to be exchanged on the FM, and only those items
> that the rules specify are tradeable are tradeable.  Even if snowgod
> could "find" entities under the auspices of R115, he could not sell them.

Did frozenwaterdiety say the t-shirts were entities?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:15:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka RFC

RFC
Created Cranium Copyright
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Amend R818 to include the following text between the existing first and 
second paragraphs:

Prosthetic Foreheads are unique.  No two Prosthetic Foreheads are 
identical, nor for that matter are any two Prosthetic Foreheads 
substantially similar.  Whenever a player describes a Prosthetic Forehead 
as a condition of buying it from the Treasury, any player who feels the 
recently purchased Prosthetic Forehead bears too great a resemblance to a 
Prosthetic Forehead he already owns may summon a Forehead Tribunal within 
48 hours of the offending Prosthetic Forehead's purchase.

Once a Forehead Tribunal has been summoned, each player may send exactly 
one vote to the Assistant Tabulator during the next three days.  Votes 
may take the form of, "Yes, 'is toppy's a copy," or "No, 'is peak's 
unique."  If more than half of the votes cast are "Yes, 'is toppy's a 
copy," the offending Prosthetic Forehead is destroyed and the player who 
described it loses two points.  Otherwise, the player who called the 
Forehead Tribunal forfeits 5 A$ to the Treasury.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:23:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 282 Verdict

John Bollinger wrote:
 
> I hereby appeal CFJ 282 to the Supreme Court.  (Thanks, Wayne.)

Um, I point out that CFJ 276 is in appeal in the supreme court.  Had
Bascule not come back, you had the chance to invalidate yourself.

The ironic thing is that Wayne appealed CFJ 276 in the first place.

If CFJ 276 is overturned, the thread untangling could be fun, depending
who the [acting] justices are at the time :)

In any case, this appeal is invalid if CFJ 276 is overturned.

Clerk of the Courts
has all the threads written down somewhere

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:32:32 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery 

>On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:
>
>> No, the FM is the only legal place for transactions to take place,
>> entities must be tradeable to be exchanged on the FM, and only those items
>> that the rules specify are tradeable are tradeable.  Even if snowgod
>> could "find" entities under the auspices of R115, he could not sell them.
>
>Did frozenwaterdiety say the t-shirts were entities?

Are you just poking me to see whether I'll jump?

ThinMan
Starting to feel like a grumpy old man

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:52:36 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Easing my load.

I don't know who all needs to know this, but I would like to change my
official game email address to:

[email-masked]

I assume /dev/joe and Niccolo at the least need to know this.

Thanks-
IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:06:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:Registrar

observer Drora Bruck has left ackanomic a couple of days ago.

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:28:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC -- poet laureate

RFC
Poet Laureate
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

The Office of Poet Laureate is a Functional Office.  The Duties are:

	1) To compose poetry as described below.
	2) To maintain a web page preserving the literary heritage of Acka.

Once a month, the President may require the Poet Laureate to compose a 
poem to commemorate an important milestone in Ackan history (winning a 
cycle of internomic, a great e-mail blizzard, the resolution of a major 
crisis, the enshrinement of an Elder, etc.) or to liven a festive occasion 
(an Ackanomic holiday, a Festival of Torkola, a Witchburning, etc.)  This 
lists are by no means all-conclusive, and the President may require the 
Poet Laureate to compose for just about any event, although if players 
feel he is using this power frivolously, they are permitted to sneer.  
The Poet Laureate has seven days from the date of the President's request 
to publically post such a poem, unless the President's original public 
request allows him a longer period of time.  The Poet Laureate receives no 
compensation for such compositions beyond the customary salary.

Other players may commission the Poet Laureate to write poems on their 
behalf (to commemorate great accomplishments of theirs, to mock their 
adversaries, or just to make sure their otherwise imminently forgettable 
career will be recorded somewhere).  It is solely the privelege of the Poet 
Laureate to collect fees for such works, though he may refuse to accept a 
commission entirely.  The amount of the commission fee can be anything 
agreed on by both the commissioning player and the Poet Laureate, so long 
as this does not conflict with rules regarding transfers of currency or 
entities.  For such a commission to have effect, a public post must be 
made giving the commissioning player, the fee (if any), and the date by 
which the work must be completed.

The Poet Laureate must also maintain a web page recording the literary 
treasures of Acka.  Such items include poems of the Poet Laureate, Party 
Hall Party poems, sad little Gaol songs and Dueling Limericks (should 
such styles exist), and any other works of verse or song described in the 
rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more instatiation

I am hereby creating 13 foobars, 9 whangdoodles, 22 thingamijigs, 7 
whatzits, and a partridge in a pear tree.  They are not entities, 
currency, players or anything that entails their having any properites 
other than their names until such time, should one ever exist, that they 
are given properties by the Rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more instatiation

I am hereby creating 13 foobars, 9 whangdoodles, 22 thingamijigs, 7 
whatzits, and a partridge in a pear tree.  They are not entities, 
currency, players or anything that entails their having any properites 
other than their names until such time, should one ever exist, that they 
are given properties by the Rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more instatiation

I am hereby creating 13 foobars, 9 whangdoodles, 22 thingamijigs, 7 
whatzits, and a partridge in a pear tree.  They are not entities, 
currency, players or anything that entails their having any properites 
other than their names until such time, should one ever exist, that they 
are given properties by the Rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more instatiation

I am hereby creating 13 foobars, 9 whangdoodles, 22 thingamijigs, 7 
whatzits, and a partridge in a pear tree.  They are not entities, 
currency, players or anything that entails their having any properites 
other than their names until such time, should one ever exist, that they 
are given properties by the Rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more instatiation

I am hereby creating 13 foobars, 9 whangdoodles, 22 thingamijigs, 7 
whatzits, and a partridge in a pear tree.  They are not entities, 
currency, players or anything that entails their having any properites 
other than their names until such time, should one ever exist, that they 
are given properties by the Rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:36:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more instatiation

I am hereby creating 13 foobars, 9 whangdoodles, 22 thingamijigs, 7 
whatzits, and a partridge in a pear tree.  They are not entities, 
currency, players or anything that entails their having any properites 
other than their names until such time, should one ever exist, that they 
are given properties by the Rules.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:58:07 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  As you may have guessed.

Yes, that's me sending copies back to the list.

Please accept my apologies-
IdiotBoy
(working on that moron thing)
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:58:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forehead Wearing.

Matt Miller wrote:
 
> I didn't even have to hammer on my piglet, but I have a slightly used
> prosthetic forehead which I now place on my head.

That prosthetic forehead has been through the Dormancy Crisis, the
Nobs/Markovian wars, Quorum Crisis II, the Fruit Juice Paradoxes,
Paradox du Jour, the Contract Crisis, and countless other things.

To call that artifact, a game relic, "slightly used" is an insult, for
which I am contemplating a Politeness Moon :)

As time passes, that classic collector's item should be worth a fortune.

Malenkai
Sore forehead for 2 days

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:08:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 288 (Mellon)

robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> I've heard the protest that the Pious Player Prosthesis Paradox is too
> much akin too CFJ 256 to count.  While I leave that to the courts to
> decide, I offer these arguments.

That was my rambling at 4 am.  I would not judge it invalid on the
similarity grounds, but I see *how* it could be, in a more abstract
dimension (qv previous post, or post private correspondance).  It
does see that the church rule gives the non-rule church policy some
legal force *very similar* to my gadget paradox.  Moreover, this, and
the gadget paradox, as well as CFJ 256, are all based on hypothetical
pseudo-rules, given quasi legal force by the rules that regulate them.
 
> As far as I know, this is the first instance of a single statement being
> self-contradictory in the rules.  Unless, of course, someone passed "This
> statement is false," as a proposal and I don't know about it.

This statement is false.  I won by paradox on a "this statement is false"
rule. (qv CFJ 184).
 
> As for it being based on a hypothetical case, I agree that it's cheap --
> I just want to see if it's legal.

Its cheapness is debatable.  I gave a cheap example, I admit, in my
rebuttal.  The question is, where do you draw that ever elusive judgement
line?  I did not mean to imply it was cheap.  I meant to demonstrate
what could be done with "hypothetical".

Malenkai
won by paradox once, and has 3 other in the queue, has tried about 15
times, wants the Chartreuse Goose

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 21:15:10 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: RFC -- poet laureate 

>RFC
>Poet Laureate
>Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

I like it, and I see no problem with it at all upon my
first reading.

ThinMan
Discerning reader

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:18:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

Ed Graham wrote:
> 
> This _might_ fix the current dilema over R115 entities.
> 

"Why Me?" (proposal 1207, or something like that), and CFJ 284 (if
I ever get to it), will fix R 115 entities.

Malenkai
Hopefully, anyway

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:23:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict

Bascule wrote:

> ThinMan says that his CFJ "makes abundant
> sense", and yet many things that seem to make plenty of sense make
> no sense whatever in this game, such as CFJ 181, and CFJ 207.

CFJ 181 is a beautiful verdict, and intelligent reading and rendering
of the rules, and has uncommon insight.

And I didn't even write it :).  We never did resolve our disagreement
on CFJ 181.  I remember a Supreme Court verdict that hinged on CFJ 181,
and we got to the same verdict with opposite beliefs in 181.  The good
ol' days :).

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:48:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Supreme Court

snowgod had appealed CFJ 282, without reasoning.  Therefore it is
appealed, even in the CFJ 276 FALSE thread.  Would the Web-Harfer please
note both snowgod's and ThinMan's appeals.

The following are in appeal in the SC:

CFJ 269
CFJ 276
CFJ 282

The first 2 are delinquint, or almost so.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:10:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- poet laureate

robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> RFC
> Poet Laureate
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> The Office of Poet Laureate is a Functional Office.

Do not make it a functional office.  This is the Gaoler mistake again.
As the poet earns commissions, or has the potential to do so (like the
Gaoler may be bribed), he or she does not warrant a salary. Moreover,
in my mental taxonomy anyway, the office looks more like a normal office
than a functional office, and elections are more fun.

Also, make the office "optional", in that no action is taken to fill the
office if no volunteers step forward.  You will have the Chess-Umpire
problem again (except I may be the acting poet, yuck).  I have an overhaul
of the office system in my queue that addresses some of this stuff.

> Once a month, the President may require the Poet Laureate to compose a
> poem to commemorate an important milestone in Ackan history (winning a
> cycle of internomic, a great e-mail blizzard, the resolution of a major
> crisis, the enshrinement of an Elder, etc.) or to liven a festive occasion
> (an Ackanomic holiday, a Festival of Torkola, a Witchburning, etc.)  This
> lists are by no means all-conclusive, and the President may require the
> Poet Laureate to compose for just about any event [...]

I would wait to see if snowgod's proposal dealing with public gatherings
(which I hope everyone votes for, despite its benign loophole) passes (P1237,
I believe).  This starts a definition of public events.  Although its
ok to allow language letting the president demand a poem to commemerate
any event (and I encourage keeping that), I would piggyback off of that
definition of "standard" public events for the other part of your wording,
and augment that if necessary.  If that proposal fails, I would
start a list of public events here (or perhaps another rule), that this,
and anyone else, could piggyback off of.  I am trying to discourage every
10 rule from saying (witchhunts, festivals, holidays, etc), then you have
to check the particular rule.  I would just like to say "public event"
and have a list.  A better alternative, which I did with Locations and
Tradeable, is to define each public event as a public event specifically
in the rule (ie, amend each of them to include the line "The X is considered
a public event).
 
> feel he is using this power frivolously, they are permitted to sneer.
> The Poet Laureate has seven days from the date of the President's request
> to publically post such a poem, unless the President's original public
> request allows him a longer period of time.  The Poet Laureate receives no
> compensation for such compositions beyond the customary salary.

If you make it a regular office, remove the "customary salary" part.
 
Otherwise, I would vote for it.

Malenkai
in a YES voting mood

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:17:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka RFC

robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> RFC
> Created Cranium Copyright
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

> any player who feels the
> recently purchased Prosthetic Forehead bears too great a resemblance to a
> Prosthetic Forehead he already owns may summon a Forehead Tribunal within
> 48 hours of the offending Prosthetic Forehead's purchase.

Why not "any forehead owned by anyone"?  Why limit to just ones owned by
the player calling the Tribunal?

Please make the challenge period 3 days.  I worked hard to get all of
these times 3 days; it makes things easier for everyone.  Although I
understand, and even subscribe, to the anti-standardization argument,
we have only limited time to play the game, so I would *prefer* to 
standardize some things, freeing up that time for more fun things.  
Almost all times in acka are 3 or 7 days, with a couple of 4s for
special cases, such as Supreme Court appeals.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:23:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 285 Verdict

CFJ 285 has been judged FALSE.  

I commend ThinMan for getting into the habit of packaging the CFJ almost
as I send it out.

Would Chief Cheese please publish the auction results?  I have lost
them (sorry).

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 285
  Subject: Algebraic Auction
Initiator: frozenwaterdiety
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 15, 1996, 09:56h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Guy Fawkes bid of H+1 A$ (where H is the magnitude, in A$, of the highest
bid less than 305 A$ submitted by a player other than Guy Fawkes) in the
auction for the Vending Machine was a legal bid.

frozenwaterdiety's Reasoning:

I do not care either way, I just wish to see this resolved.  Included is
the reasoning that Guy Fawkes sent to me with his bid.

>Hey, nowhere does it say an algebraic expression is an invalid bid.  All
>the rules say is that a bid must be an amount equal to or less than the
>amount the player making it possesses.  Any set of bids containing a bid
>less than 305 A$ made by a player other than Guy Fawkes contains a valid
>H, and the set of bids in this auction is such a set.  Since a set of
>bids containing a valid H results in a bid from me of H+1, which must be
>305 A$ or less, this bid is valid for any set of bids containing a valid
>H, and this bid is valid.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The basic question is whether "H+1 A$" is an "amount of A$" as required
by R 1023/1.  I am inclined to say that "H+1 A$" _represents_ an amount
of A$, but is not an amount of A$ itself.  Moreover, if an algebraic
expression is permissible as a bid, then when is it evaluated?  When
the bidder sends it?  When the Auctioneer receives it?  At the end of the
auction?  Some other time?

The situation is sufficiently unclear that I feel justified in calling on
game custom and the spirit of the game to resolve the issue.  Game custom
indicates that auction bids are numerical, not algebraic.  Moreover, to
the extent that game custom allows us to call on real-world usages of the
words with which our rules are written, algebraic expressions are not
allowable bids.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:33:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 283 Verdict

CFJ 283 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 283
  Subject: Cheesy Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 12, 1996, 12:44h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
 
The legality of the Fuzzy Green Mold's destruction of Malenkai's
Cheese Box cannot be determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning:

A decision of TRUE here means Guy Fawkes wins
this cycle.  The Cheese Box used R115 to become indestructible by any
means other than Malenkai.

The Fuzzy Green Mold used R115 to claim to destroy it anyway.  There
exists in the ruleset no means of determining precedence between
instantiations, so each claim is equally valid and derives its validity from
the exact same source.  So -- what does happen when an irresistible
force meets an unmovable object?

breadbox's Reasoning:

R115 cannot be construed to allow idle conversation to have the force
of Rules. The game of Ackanomic does not attempt to define the state
of everything that is ever mentioned in relation to it; to insist
otherwise is to seriously miss the point of the game.

If I announce that I have a cat which I have just sealed into a box,
and that box contains a mechanism which will release poison gas if a
piece of plutonium inside the mechasnism decays beyond a certain
point, and I then issue a CFJ saying that the state of my cat's life
cannot be determined - well, that may very well be true, but certainly
no one is going to consider that I have just proven that the game is
in a paradox state as per R219. The rules do not care about my poor
cat, and so her legal state is nil.

If, however, I then issue a proposal that no one may ask me how my cat
is doing in a public forum unless the cat is alive at the time, and
the citizens of Ackanomia are so unwise as to vote it in, we would
have a different story.

If, instead of my cat, I had announced that I had put an existing
entity in my box (such as the Little Lamb), I might be eligible for a
CFCJ for attempting to manipulate a protected entity. Or maybe I would
just be ignored. It doesn't matter: the entity would be alive and
well.

Words in the public forum cannot affect the game state except as
defined in the rules.

The legality of the Fuzzy Green Mold's destruction of Malenkai's
Cheese Box *can* be determined with finality. If you ask the rules,
they will reply, "Mu."

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 00:46:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC AT

I dislike the name "Assistant Tabulator".  Can anyone think of a
creative alternative, that still conveys the function, perhaps from
another language, that's easy to type?

I'd like to have a CSR issued to change it, but cannot think of 
anything.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #241
*******************************