Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #251
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Friday, September 20 1996      Volume 01 : Number 251

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:26:35 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Trade 

>I am giving A$35 to snowgod for services rendered, assuming he
>acks the transaction.
>
>Malenkai

I accept and acknowledge this transaction

snowgod
portraiteer

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Businesses are Money Pumps; throughput is the flow.  Most business theory
is heavy on abstraction, causing unneeded hassle to the casual trader, but
IdiotBoy Trading Empires keeps it simple with the Hot Tips Newsletter.  Ask
IdiotBoy for a quote on your bonds today!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:51:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: official

Malenkai has done such an excellent work on the players list that I
downloaded is as-is (I believe he suggested as much) , and I'll start
doing some redesign work from that as a starting point.

Thanks, Malenkai.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:14:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ransom

I don't think this merits a CFCJ since the protection rule was changed.  
So far, there's been no change in the game state.  (And I suppose one 
could argue that even if HC DID superglue her box shut, there'd be no 
change in the game state -- the next person to find her could merely 
mention the use of solvent.)

Guy Fawkes

On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> > Ackazens;
> > 
> > I have kidnapped Phoebe the Steel Flee and am holding her for Ransom.  If
> > the following conditions are not met within 9 days,  I shall superglue
> > her red and blue,  rather pretty box closed and dispose of her somewhere
> > in the Wilds of Ackanomia.
> > 
> > First,  I call for the immediate repeal of Rules 115 and 219.  
> > 
> > Second,  Malenkai shall be stripped of all wins,  and titles associated
> > with those wins.
> > 
> > Third,  disband the Vulcan Party.  Ackanomia is no place for pure Logic.
> > 
> > Lastly,  I want A$200,000 and 100 Prosthetic Foreheads delivered to a
> > Location to be specified when all other demands are met.
> > 
> > Believe me,  I mean bussiness.
> > 
> > bodyofabadlyspelledcrime
> > (obvious alias)
> > 
> >
> Give me a break.  At least demand things that are going to be of 
> advantage.  We should CFCJ this.  But instead, the UW has sent a hit 
> man to take care of the foolish terrorist.
> 
> Techno 
> "Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."
> 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:15:14 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Trade 

snowgod wrote:
>>I am giving A$35 to snowgod for services rendered, assuming he
>>acks the transaction.
>>
>>Malenkai
>
>I accept and acknowledge this transaction

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:20:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Accounts

Malenkai wrote:
>> If anyone is interested in volunteering to be an assistant Financier, then
>> please let me know.  I am particularly interested in someone to log and
>> acknowledge transactions for me.
>
>I volunteer, as I am going to be keeping the information on the 
>Speaker's page anyway.  Once I get this stuff updated, I am going to
>post updated balances on that page within a day or 2 of a change being
>posted.
>
>Then the balances can be cross checked at bond dividend time.

I hereby appoint Malenkai as an assistant Financier.  Thanks, Malenkai.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:29:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 115 (Guy Fawkes)

On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Guy Fawkes has been selected to judge the following, and has
> 3 days to accept or decline the appointment.
> 
> Would the Financier please note snowgod's A$20 Court Fee.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 115
>   Subject:  Illegal Press
> Initiator:  snowgod
>     Judge:  Guy Fawkes (selected Sep 18, 1996, 21:31 EDT)

I am not yet declining judgment, but at the moment I have not read the 
Hot Tips Newsletter, and therefore feel unqualified to decide this case.  
If IdiotBoy would send me a complimentary copy of the HTN, I would feel 
better able to make a decision.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:36:10 -0600
From: Uncle Sam <[email-masked]>
Subject: Underworld 

I, Uncle Sam, do hereby declare my membership and allegiance to the
Underworld Party.

Uncle Sam
Member of the Great Underworld Party

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:15:07 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1263

Proposal 1263 - Fri Sep 20 11:15:06 EDT 1996
Duels
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

1. Any player who feels offended by another player, or is engaged in a 
heated discussion with another player, may challenge that player to a
duel, subject to the limitations described below.

2. The procedure for challenging is as follows:
  The Challenging player finds another players who agrees to be eir
Second. The Challenger gives eir Second the name of the player e wishes to
Challenge, and the reason for the Challenge. The Second posts a public
message, which anounces the name of the Challenging player, the name of
the Challenged player, the reason for the Challenge, and the fact that a
Challenge has been made.
The Chalenged player has four days to find a player who agrees to
be eir Second and have the Second respond to the message publically. The 
message should contain the following information: The fact that that the 
post is a reply to a Challenge, the Challenge it is a reply to, and a
Contest chosen by the Challenged player for the Duel, or an explicit 
waiver of the privilege of choosing the contest. If there 
is no response to the Challenge within the four days,  or the Challenged 
player declines the Challenge, then he is considered
to have forefeit the Duel. In this case, the Challenged player loses 6
points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.

The Game or Contest chosen fot the Duel must be one listed on the Games &
Contests web page, or must be described in this rule; moreover, it must
be playable by two players and have definitive rules for determining a
winner.
The Challenged player may explicitly waive the privilege of choosing a
Contest, in which case the Challenging player may choose a Contest.
However, if the response to the Challenge message includes neither a
choice of Contest, nor an explicit message to the effect that the
Challenged player has waived the privilege of first choice, then the
Challenged player is considered to have forfeit the Duel. In this case e
loses 6 points and the Challenging players gains 6 points.

If the Challenged's Player has accepted the Duel, then the President has
the duty to anounce that a Duel will be taking place between the
Challenged player and the Challenging player who will be competing against
each other in the specified Game or Contest, and that the the winner of
the Game or Contest will be the winner of the Duel. If the Presidents is
invloved in the Duel, then this duty becomes the duty of a Senator whose 
name comes first in alphaebetical order from among the Senators who are 
not involved in the Duel.

When the Duel is over, the winner of the Duel receives 6 points in 
addition to any rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the 
Contest itself. The loser of the Duel loses 6 points in addition to any 
rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the Contest itself.
The winner's Second receives 3 points, the loser's Second loses 3 points.

The results of the Duel have no other direct influence over Ackanomic. 
However if either the Challenger or the Challenged have committed 
themselves in a public message to a certain action depending on the 
results of the Duel, then they must perform that action. Should they fail 
to perform that action, it is the duty of the Second of the other player 
taking part in the Duel to call CFCJ against that player. Any other 
player may do so as well.

3. Contests:
A. Limerick Contest:
  Each of the participants in the duel writes a limerick about the other
participant. The limerick may be silly, funny, and even ridicule the other
participant in a good-humored manner, as long as it is not offensive. The
limericks no more than five days after the Challenge has been publically
anounced. If one of the participants fails to post a limerick, then the
other wins by default. Once both limericks have been posted, there is a
four-day voting period. During the voting period all Players may send
their votes to their tabulator, indicating which limerick is the better
one. The participant whose limerick got the most votes, wins the duel. In
case of a tie, the participant whose limerick was posted first wins the
duel.

B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
praises]}}
(i) The game of Boolean tic-tac-toe, heretofore known as Bttt is played on
a 3x3 grid labeled in the following manner

a  b  c
d  e  f
g  h  i

(ii) At the begining of the game on participant is randomly chosen to
play the role of T, the other participant plays the role of F. The former
is known as the T-players, the latter is known as the F-player.
(iii)
  (a) The symbol ! is the NOT symbol.
  (b) The follwoing comma-delimited symbols are equivalent to T
       !F,!3F,!2T
  (c) The following comma-delimited symbols are equivalent to F
       !T,!3T,!2F
   (d) every symbol is equivalent to itself
(iv)Participants alternate turns. The T-player always goes first. The
first turn must be played no more than three days after the game has been
anounced. Every subsequent play must take place within 3 days of the most
recent play. A participant who misses this deadline loses by default.
(v) There are two possible plays Play and Anti-Play.
   Play - Participant places eir symbol, in an unoccupied square.
   A Particiapnt may not any of the equivalents of the symbol. The
T-player may only play T, the F-Player may only play F
 
  Anti-Play - An Anti-Play consists of adding the NOT symbol next to a
symbol already on the grid. If there is already a NOT symbol next to that
location, then the number next to the NOT symbol is incremented. If there
is no number then a 2 is inserted between the NOT symbol and T or F symbol
If the number next to a NOT symbol is 3 then it is illegal to Anti-Play in
that square. 
 It is illegal for a participant to Anti-Play on eir own Symbol or any of
its equivalents. Anti-Play is only permissible if the other Participant
has a winning move in eir next turn.

(vi) Winning - A player wins when three symbols in a single column,row or
diagonal are all equivalent to eir symbol.   
If no there is no legal move and  no winner can be determined according to 
the criteria described in the 
previous sentence, the winner is the participant who has more symbols 
equal to eir own symbol in the grid.

4.
a. It is impermissible to Challenge an Untouchable Player to a Duel.

b. A Player who Challenged another Player to a Duel or a Player who has
been Challenged by another Player to a Duel is Untouchable until the Duel
procedures are over, for whatever reason.

c. A Player who was a Chalengee in a Duel, that is, was Challenged to a
Duel and accepted, continues to be Untouchable until 20 days after the
end of the Duel procedures.

d. Players on Vacation are Untouchable {{[Is this necessary?]}}

e. Players in Gaol are Untouchable.

f. A Player who anounces that e will be going on Vacation on a specific
future date is Untouchable starting on the date of the anouncement or four
days before the anounced date of the Vacation, whichever is later, until
the date he actually goes on Vacation or four days after the anounced
date of the Vacation, whichever is earlier.  If by that latter date the
Player still has not gone on Vacation, then he cannot be Untouchable for a
period of 14 days, this sentence has no effect on the other subsections 
of this rule.

g. If a player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures  goes on
Vacation that lasts more than 7 days e foreits the Duel.

h. If a Player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures goes on
Vacation that lasts 7 days or less, all Duel procedures are delayed by a
number of days equal to the number of days e was on Vacation. If a player
goes on a second Vacation during the same Duel he forfeits the Duel.

i. It is impermissible for a Player running for Office to Challenge
another Player running for the same Office.

j. A player who has declined a Duel, or failed to respond to a Challenge, 
is Untouchable until 3 days after the date e has declined, or until 3 
days after e is considered to have forfeit the duel.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:15:36 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1264

Proposal 1264 - Fri Sep 20 11:15:36 EDT 1996
ammend 970
snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Amend R970 to read in whole:

The Ambassador (or, in the absence of an Ambassador, the Speaker) shall be
Ackanomic's Liaison to InterNomic.

Ackanomic's Liaison shall keep the Players of Ackanomic apprised in a
timely fashion of events in InterNomic of interest to Ackanomic.

Any Ackanomic Player may request the Liaison to make an InterNomic Proposal
by sending the Proposal to the Liaison.

Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic, the
Liaison shall initiate a vote in the senate to determine how he should cast
Ackanomic's vote in Internomic.

 Each senator shall, within one week, cast his vote (in the event of a tie,
the proconsul may cast his vote), and the Ambassador shall cast his vote in
internomic in accordance with the decision of the senate. Any senator who
does not cast a vote shall be placed In Contempt.

In the event that the senate does not reach a decision [for whatever
reason], the ambassador shall cast his vote in Internomic in accordance
with the decision of the President.

Whenever Ackanomic is required to serve as a judge in Internomic, the
Liaison shall render that judgement, and shall do so in the best interests
of Ackanomic.

- ----

Create a new rule entitled "in Contempt" with the following text:

{{any senator who is has been held in Contempt shall no longer be held so}}

A senator who is held in Contempt shall be required to either pay a fine of
A$100 to the treasury, or be placed in the Gaol for three days.  The
senator who is in Contempt is allowed to choose which of the two options he
would like to commit to.  If a senator does not make a choice within three
days of being held in Contempt it will be assumed that he has chosen the
Gaol sentence.

A player shall cease to be held in Contempt once their fine has been paid,
or sentence completed, as the case may be.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:15:56 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1265

Proposal 1265 - Fri Sep 20 11:15:55 EDT 1996
Reducing the Scorekeeper's Workload
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal R 339

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Guy: HTN

My attempts to send an issue of my publication to Guy Fawkes have been
unsuccessful.  Bouncy-bouncy-bouncy.  I'll try again later, perhaps the
problem is here.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 14:05:25 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266

Proposal 1266 - Fri Sep 20 14:05:25 EDT 1996
The Office of the Official Moron
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

The Office of the Official Moron of Ackanomic exists.  It has one seat, 
to be filled by Nomination and Election for Office if by any process at 
all.  The office need not be filled.  The term of office is four weeks.

The Duties of the Official Moron:
	To post moronic comments in the public forum and promote harfiness 
	thoroughout Acka.  Neglect of this duty is grounds for impeachment.

The Priveleges of the Official Moron:
	A Politeness Moon may not be called against the Official Moron.  

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:13:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 1266 - Fri Sep 20 14:05:25 EDT 1996
> The Office of the Official Moron
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> The Office of the Official Moron of Ackanomic exists.  It has one seat, 
> to be filled by Nomination and Election for Office if by any process at 
> all.  The office need not be filled.  The term of office is four weeks.
> 
> The Duties of the Official Moron:
> 	To post moronic comments in the public forum and promote harfiness 
> 	thoroughout Acka.  Neglect of this duty is grounds for impeachment.
> 
> The Priveleges of the Official Moron:
> 	A Politeness Moon may not be called against the Official Moron.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:34:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1266 - Fri Sep 20 14:05:25 EDT 1996
> The Office of the Official Moron
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

> The Priveleges of the Official Moron:
>         A Politeness Moon may not be called against the Official Moron.

You need the precedence claim over R 400 :(.  I thought that was in the
RFC.  We can either retract, or pass and amend.

Malenkai
selling 10 PFTechno @ 1 electronic potato

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:32:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Observers.

Looks like they quit too soon.  DOn't make me submit a bunch of moronic
porposals just to fill up my mail box.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:23:11 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266 

>Malenkai
>selling 10 PFTechno @ 1 electronic potato

I accept and acknowledge this transaction

I am also selling 25 PFguy @ A$125 or 1 Cow Town Hotel

snowgod
good to have my name back

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Amazing things happen when great minds work together.

That's why IdiotBoy is working closely with the underworld party to insure
that your investments will provide you with maximum cash flow and minimum
risk.  Only IdiotBoy actively promotes Waynenomics as part of his
investment package!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> >Malenkai
> >selling 10 PFTechno @ 1 electronic potato
> 
> I accept and acknowledge this transaction
> 
> I am also selling 25 PFguy @ A$125 or 1 Cow Town Hotel
> 
I accept and acknowledge this transaction.   (@ A$125)

> snowgod
> good to have my name back
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
> Amazing things happen when great minds work together.
> 
> That's why IdiotBoy is working closely with the underworld party to insure
> that your investments will provide you with maximum cash flow and minimum
> risk.  Only IdiotBoy actively promotes Waynenomics as part of his
> investment package!
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
> 
> 

- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:51:16 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Bond Offering (Brinjal) 

I am selling 25 PFsnowgod @ 1 Cow Town Hotel

snowgod

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Amazing things happen when great minds work together.

That's why IdiotBoy is working closely with the underworld party to insure
that your investments will provide you with maximum cash flow and minimum
risk.  Only IdiotBoy actively promotes Waynenomics as part of his
investment package!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:15:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> >Malenkai
> >selling 10 PFTechno @ 1 electronic potato
> 
> I accept and acknowledge this transaction

I ack.  I guess as Assistant to the Financier,  I have the authority to
confirm it as well.  Kewl, real power :)

Malenkai
Assistant to the Financier

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:26:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1266

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 1266 - Fri Sep 20 14:05:25 EDT 1996
> > The Office of the Official Moron
> > Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> > The Priveleges of the Official Moron:
> >         A Politeness Moon may not be called against the Official Moron.
> 
> You need the precedence claim over R 400 :(.  I thought that was in the
> RFC.  We can either retract, or pass and amend.

It wasn't in the RFC.  For the sake of simplicity, we can pass and amend.

> Malenkai
> selling 10 PFTechno @ 1 electronic potato
> 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:28:02 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond Offering

I am offering 10 PF techno at A$206 

snowgod
who would like to remind you that IdiotBoy can help you with all things 
financial.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:24:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 290 Verdict

CFJ 290 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 290
  Subject: Timing is everything
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Sep 17, 1996, 23:34h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The cycle or game ends at the exact moment the Speaker lawfully
announces the Fat Lady is singing in accordance with R 790.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

In this reasoning, the word cycle should be construed to mean 'cycle
or game', where appropriate.

This has never been clarified to my satisfaction.  I realise game custom
indicates that the cycle ends when the event that makes someone a winner
occurs, but CFJ 280 establishes that game custom can be superceeded by
new game custom, if new thought or fact comes to light.  While I don't
overly much care, I'd like this clarified.  I do believe the statement
issued for judgement is true, however, and will make that case for the
judge to pick at.

It seems that the cycle can end at one of the following three times:

1) when it is publically knowable that a winning event occurred.  In
our rules, that would be when a magic number score is publically knowable,
or 4 days after the CotC announces a TRUE verdict on a R 219 CFJ.

2) when the appropriate officer announces a winning condition (+ any
mandated waiting period).  In our rules, the appropriate officers would
be Scorekeeper (R 422) and CotC (R 219).

3) When the Speaker announces the Fat Lady is singing, after the occurance
of an event in 1) or 2).

Our current game custom indicates 1), 2) is out, IMO, and 3) is correct.
Even if this CFJ is judged FALSE, I ask the judge to clarify this (I wish
we had troolean (is that a word?) CFJs).

The question is, when does the cycle end.  R 666 gives us a list of things
to do when a winner is declared, but does not explicitly say when the
cycle ends.  The closest is item k), "The game cycle number is incremented."

I think common sense indicates that is when the cycle ends, on the
"execution" of step k), which would occur at the same instant the winner
is declared, assuming steps a) thru k) take an infintesimal amount of
time.

R 790, however, says

> Furthermore, the game, or a cycle of the game, cannot be over until
> the Fat Lady sings.

It is reasonable to construe "until the Fat Lady sings" in the context
of the rule, meaning "when the Speaker announces the Fat Lady is singing
on the declaration of a winner"

R 666, section k), claims to end the cycle, yet R 790 claims the cycle
cannot end until a certain event occurs, assuming the above renderings
of the appropriate passages.

R 790 claims precedence, via:

> This rule takes precedence over all other rules dealing with end-of-game > conditions.

R 666 claims, via its title, to be an "End of Cycle" rule, but I haven't
known rule title to have any legal weight whatsoever.  Moreover, R 666
says "when a winner is declared", without distinguising between "game"
or "cycle".  Furthermore, game custom and R 904 both indicate "end of game"
and "end of cycle" are the same thing, thus the precedence claim above
applies to R 666, and R 790 thus establishes precedence over R 666.

If this precedence claim is found invalid for "cycles" as opposed to
"games", this argument will still hold sway with regard to R 219 wins,
as opposed to R 422 wins, but will complicate things a bit.

Anyway, we have R 666 k) and R 790 both claiming to end the cycle.  R 790
wins, and the cycle ends when the Speaker legally announces the the
Fat Lady is singing on a winner being declared.  A verdict of TRUE is
indicated.  Got this far?  Now the thorns and complications.

What happens when R 790 wins that precedence claim?  Does step k) hang
until the Speaker annouces the singing?  That is what we may like to
believe, but that seems like handwaving to me (for an examination of
this hanging, see CFJ 216, which was judged false for reasons unrelated
to the alledged hanging).  If there is no hanging, then what happens?

The cycle number is incremented on step k), but the cycle doesn't end
until later.  I guess that is ok, although a little weird.

Its worse.  CFJ 193 establishes implicit game custom about R 666:

> R666/2(b) through R666/s(m) are Ackanomic procedures to
> be carried out beyond the bounds of Ackanomic play, much as setting up
> "queen on color" is part of chess but not part of chess play [...]

Does the Fat Lady announcement fall in there?  Yes, akin to a chess
referee announcing the conditions for checkmate have been legally
established, and all other rules and meta-rules of chess were satisfied
for a win to be declared.

The judge should also review CFJ 187, 188, 189, 193, 216 and a few others,
grep for 666 or "Grapefruit" or "Juice" (with a case-insensitive grep).

mr cwm's reasoning:

The procedure in R666/8 executes "whenever" a winner is declared, and the
Speaker is required by R790/3 to announce the Fat Lady is singing "upon" a
winner being declared.  Neither can happen before the other (see CFJ 186),
but since no conflict arises from them occurring simultaneously, that is
what they must do. That is, the Fat Lady must be announced to be singing
at the the same instant R666/8(a) begins executing (equivalently,
R666/8(a) begins executing at the same instant the Fat Lady is announced
to be singing).  Note that R790/3 does not say that the cycle ends when
the Fat Lady sings, only that it can not end until she does.  Thus, by
common usage, the cycle ends when the cycle number is incremented by
R666/8(l), instantaneously before play resumes with the next cycle by
R666/8(m). This is entirely permissable, since the Fat Lady must have been
singing since the initiation of R666/8(a).  Note, too, that even if the
items R666/8(a) through (l) require only infinitesimal time, this does
not mean that R666/8(l) occurs at the same instant that the Fat Lady is
announced to be singing, only that the interval between the two events can
be arbitrarily small.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:26:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 294 Verdict

CFJ 294 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 294
  Subject: Overworking the CotC
Initiator: frozenwaterdiety
    Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Sep 19, 1996, 19:24h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

This statement cannot be judged true

Reasoning:

        [none - CotC]

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

Rule 214 states, in part:

"There are only the following possible Judgements: (1) True; (2) False;
(3) Undecided; or (4) Invalid."

Clearly, True is a possible Judgement.

This CFJ's statement claims that True is not, in this case, a possible
Judgement, and is therefore in direct contradiction of the rules.  As
such, I proclaim that it is FALSE.

Despite the pseudo-Godelian statement, the Judge is more than able to
deliver TRUE as the verdict of this CFJ.  No rules require that CFJ's
make logical sense or avoid creating cognitive paradoxi.  In fact, I
briefly considered delivering a verdict of TRUE without comment just to
prove this point.  The Judge's ability to deliver a TRUE verdict is in no
way abridged, and so I judge this statement to be FALSE.

I CAN deliver a verdict of TRUE on this statement.  I have chosen not to.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:32:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 295 (Wayne)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 295
  Subject: The Existentialism of Prosethic Foreheads
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Wayne (selected Sep 20, 1996, 20:36h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Should P1262 pass, all wearers of Prosthetic Foreheads will
receive 100 A$.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

P1262 gives 100 A$ to all players wearing a Prosthetic
Forehead that they did not create.  Rule 818 clearly states that players
*purchase* Prosthetic Foreheads, and that an infinite number and variety
of them are already in existance, making it unnecessary to create more.

Furthermore, game custom, at least on the finanacial page, indicates that
the Treasury contains an infinite number and variety of Prosthetic
Foreheads, further reinforcing the idea that they are purchased rather
than created.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:36:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 115 (Calvin N Hobbes)

Guy Fawkes declined.

Calvin N Hobbes has been selected to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 115
  Subject:  Illegal Press
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Guy Fawkes (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Calvin N Hobbes (selected Sep 20, 1996, 20:40 EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

IdiotBoy has broken the rules.

snowgod's comments:

IdiotBoy has started a newsparer (the Hot Tips Newletter) in violation of
R891, which states that "Any Player may start a newspaper, by publically
declaring that they are doing so.  Newspapers must be given names, which
must be announced at the same time that the newspaper is created.  A small
fee of A$20 must be paid to the treasury to cover start-up costs."

IdiotBoy may or may not have complied with the first two sentences of R891,
depending on interpretaion, but there can be no doubt that he has not
complied with the third sentence that requires him to pay a fee of A$20 to
the treasury.

The rules do not define exactly what a newspaper is, but I contend that the
Hot Tips Newsletter is exactly that.  It is a weekly report, always
published under the same title.  It contains news and information which is
meant to inform it subscribers.  IdiotBoy calls himself "editor" of the HTN
(and who has heard of an editor with no publication?).

With no clear defination of a newspaper in the rules, the judge must reach
his desicion in accordance with currently existing game custom (which would
require the common sense interpretation of a what a newspaper is) and the
spirit of the game (which is tough on crime).

Suggested Penalty:

A FINE of $150 credits [due to the commercial nature of the publication]
payable to the treasury.

and

a SENTENCE in the Gaol of 3 days

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 20:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 295 (Wayne)

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 295
>   Subject: The Existentialism of Prosethic Foreheads
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: Wayne (selected Sep 20, 1996, 20:36h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Should P1262 pass, all wearers of Prosthetic Foreheads will
> receive 100 A$.
> 
> Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:
> 
> P1262 gives 100 A$ to all players wearing a Prosthetic
> Forehead that they did not create.  Rule 818 clearly states that players
> *purchase* Prosthetic Foreheads, and that an infinite number and variety
> of them are already in existance, making it unnecessary to create more.
> 
> Furthermore, game custom, at least on the finanacial page, indicates that
> the Treasury contains an infinite number and variety of Prosthetic
> Foreheads, further reinforcing the idea that they are purchased rather
> than created.
> 
Why do we need a CFJ on this?  Isn't this clear?  The wording was designed
to confuse, not deny all wearers their rightful monies.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:19:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1263

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1263 - Fri Sep 20 11:15:06 EDT 1996
> Duels
> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

> their votes to their tabulator, indicating which limerick is the better
> one. 

I'm not sure about "their tabulator".  If this is to be construed as
"the Tabulator", it will be the Assistant Tabulator anyway by R 414.
(soon to renamed Count Tabula, hopefully).  This will make my CSR to
do the rename a little harder.

> g. If a player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures  goes on
> Vacation that lasts more than 7 days e foreits the Duel.

What if both players go on long vacations?  Is it a paradox?  I don't
believe so, its possible that both forfeit.  Although that makes no 
sense in the customary language of duels, I *think* that will happen.
In any case, it would have been nice to have something spelled out.
 
> j. A player who has declined a Duel, or failed to respond to a Challenge,
> is Untouchable until 3 days after the date e has declined, or until 3
> days after e is considered to have forfeit the duel.

In this case you use 3, and used 4 elsewhere.  I wish we could simply
standardize on 3 and 7 days.

I wish you had made all the times three or seven days.  As the player
who will probably have to keep track of this, all the odd times (4, 14,
and 20) will create a little more work.

I voted for it, I will propose the above amendemnts if it is accepted.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:57:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 296 (snowgod)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 296
  Subject: Game Effect of a FALSE CFJ
Initiator: IdiotBoy
    Judge: snowgod (selected Sep 20, 1996, 22:56h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The game effect of returning a verdict of FALSE on a Call for Justice can
not be determined with finality.

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

Rule 214 lays out four possible Judgements which a Judge may return on a
CFJ.  These are (1) True, (2) False, (3) Undecided, or (4) Invalid.  Any
accompanying reasoning or discussion of effects is NOT part of the
Judgement.

Rule 216 gives us a description of the game effect of returning a verdict of
TRUE on a CFJ.  That decision does not become part of the Ruleset, but
serves to explicitly define game custom.  No such consideration is made of
the return of a FALSE verdict on a CFJ, therefore the effect of such a
verdict can not be known.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 23:19:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Buying

1 scroll of crumble @ A$200.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:06:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 284 Verdict

CFJ 284 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 284
  Subject: Cracking down on R 115 entities
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Sep 12, 1996, 12:48h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Ackanomic entities may not be created if they are not defined by the Rules.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

There has recently been a series of attempts at entity creation.  I might
have just shut up about it if we had stopped with Malenkai's Scroll of
Money, if I could have gotten certain assurances from Malenkai, but things
are now getting out of hand.  Now on to the actual argument:

The two rules in question are Rule 115 and Rule 592:

Rule 115/0 (Immutable)
Permissibility Of The Unprohibited

     Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is
     permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing
     the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules
     explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Rule 592/5 (Mutable)
Protection
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

     A Protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except
     as specified by the Rules. It has no effect on the game other than those
     effects specified by the Rules.

     A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the
     rules. An action's performance has no effect on the game other than
     those effects specified by the Rules.

     All entities and actions in Ackanomic are Protected by default, unless
     the rule(s) which specify or define their behaviour *explicitly* state
     otherwise. This clause defers precedence to all such mutable rules
     which *explicitly* state such.
     
     [...]

If an entity is not defined by the Rules, then it must be protected
according to the third paragraph of R 592, for there is no rule specifying
or defining its behaviour to state that it is not protected.  Likewise,
the action of creating that entity is also protected.

R 592 prohibits the creation of a protected entity and the performance of
a protected action except as specified by the Rules.  If an entity is not
defined in the Rules then no rule specifies how it may be created, nor
specifies that it is permissible to create it.  Thus R 592 prohibits the
creation of such an entity.

The recent entity-creators have appealed to R 115 for justification to
perform their acts of creation, but as I have just demonstrated, those
acts are prohibited by R592.  Therefore, R 115 does not apply and the
creation of the entities in question is illegal.

This argument does not address whether entities that _are_ defined by the
Rules may be created; that is an entirely seperate issue which must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The Whamiol is an Ackanomic entity which, in my opinion, was lawfully
created by the Inventor.  Furthermore, it was, can continues to be,
possible to lawfully create another Whamiol.  Whamiols are not defined
by the rules, therefore the statement I was asked to judge is FALSE.

This reasoning depends on the construction of the word "entity" in the
statement.  I construe it to mean entity in the specific, as opposed
to "class of entity", which would be a construction in the generic.

ThinMan's reasoning also indicates this sort of construction:

> If an entity is not defined in the Rules then no rule specifies how it
> may be created, nor specifies that it is permissible to create it

This indicates that he means "entity" in the specific (Whamiol), and not
in the class sense (Gadget) and the statement is FALSE with regard to
Whamiols, hence the importance of pointing out this construction.  I
realise the quote is out of context, but I am using it to find a
construction for the word "entity", not for judging the merits of the
reasoning from which it was taken, out of context.

Now, what if the statement had been the following, which may have been what
was intended.  Even if it was not exactly, it seems sporting to examine
it, in any case (call this the "hypothetical statement").  I will assume
that ThinMan's reasoning is supporting the Truth of this statement, and
if this wasn't intended either, my apologies, no slight intended, but this
issue has been begging to be looked at for while anyway.  This should
also handle the case where I misconstrued "entity", but I do not believe
I have done so:

Ackanomic entities may not be created if they, or a procedure to create
the entity or an instance of a class of entity, is not defined by the Rules.

This is a nastier CFJ.  The bottom line: can R 115 be used to create
an entity that is not defined in the rules, and is not an instance of
a Gadget, instance of a Silly Vacation Hat, etc.

There are some misconceptions about R 115 which I have seen over time;
sometimes people appeal to its Immutability to give it powers over rules
which seemingly restrict it.  The important point about R 115 is that
it implicity *defers* to Mutables which place any sorts of restrictions
on what is permissible.  Although this deferrence is implicit, and this
type of Immutable to Mutable deferrence is not mentioned by R 210, it
happens (qv CFJ 204).  Without it, the game would have been toast along
time ago.  Thus ThinMan is correct in asserting that if it can be shown
that R 592 (or any other rule), prohibits undefined (read R 115) entity
creation ex-niliho, then the hypothetical statement is TRUE.

ThinMan appeals to the following clauses from R 592 to support his
argument:

> A Protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except
> as specified by the Rules.

> A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the
> rules. An action's performance has no effect on the game other than
> those effects specified by the Rules.

> All entities and actions in Ackanomic are Protected by default,

From ThinMan's reasoning:

> If an entity is not defined by the Rules, then it must be protected

I find fault in this leap of logic, if the entity does not exist, which
is the relavent case of the hypothetical statement.  If the entity has
not yet been created, it does not exist, therefore it cannot have any
attributes; it cannot be green, nor can it be Protected.  Thus the first
part of R 592 quoted above, in conjunction with the third part quoted,
does not apply.  If it doesn't exist, its not Protected.  Read the
third clause which gives the blanket Protection: "All entities and
actions in Ackanomic [...]".  This does not offer Protection to
non-extant, as yet to be created, entities.

The *action* of creating, however, is a different matter, and cannot be
sloughed off so lightly.  The act, or procedure required, to create an
entity, or instance of a class of entity, which is not defined in the
rules, is itself not specified in the rules (sorry about that).

> A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the
> rules

> All [...] actions in Ackanomic are Protected by default

Thus an unspecified action may not be performed except as specified
by the rules.  If I wasn't going to be tarred and feathered for it, I
would go for the paradox win again; I'll leave that to someone else
this time (and call it cheesy :-)).

The only reasonable rendering of this is that the action must be specified
by the rules for it to be Protected.  How can you say an unspecified
action works only as specified?  The act of posting to the public forum
is unspecified; game custom gives us that it is therefore unregulated.
Another example is IdiotBoy's Bond Newsletter, certainly, if it is found
to not be a Newspaper, the act of its distribution is unregulated, and
can be performed via R 115.  Same with snowgod placing advertisments in
his .sig file.  This action in unspecified in the rules, thus unregulated.

If it were otherwise, we've been crashed for a long time, inasmuch as
nothing is permissible except what is spelled out in the rules, including
how to read the rules!  Why do visions of Phoebe and CFJ 227 and Godel
and cheesecake fill my mind?  [BTW, I wrote most of what is R 592 now,
this is what I meant, anyway, if anyone cares].

The bottom line, the Protection of actions applies only to those actions
spelled out in the rules.

So a non-extant entity has no attributes, therefore is not Protected.
The act of creating one of these entities, unspecified in the rules,
cannot be Protected, therefore creation of these types of entities is
unregulated, and they may be created ex-niliho, thus the hypothetical
statement is FALSE as well.

What happens when they are here here?

CFJ 197, and the latest revisions to R 592, tell us that manipulation
of the entity, so long as it has no game effect, is permissable.

Also, CFJ 283 and common sense tells us that the attributes we may claim
these entities have have no legal force whatsoever.  For example, if
I create the Magic Monolith that claims to be indestructable and green,
that claim has no force of law, and it seems that it could be removed
by the Magic anti-Monolith, so long as that had no effect on the game
state either.

If, however, a rule comes along later creating some Magic Monoliths of
varying colors, and then said all extant Magic Monoliths which are green
give 50 points to their owner, it would seem to me that this would occur,
if and only if the Monolith happened to be green at the time the rule came
into force.  I seem to be digressing a bit, and its late, so fortunately
for the reader, I cannot go much further down this path, as much as I'd
like to.

Some examples of where this has happened, thus establishing game custom
of this interpretation are Malenkai's Bronze Torch (which was instantiated
with no attributes), and Malenkai's Vending Machine.

One more example to look at is the recent T-shirts by snowgod.  Based on
the above, the T-shirts could be created as described, but the rules
specify only entities explicity designated in the rules as Tradeable
are actually Tradeable.  The T-shirts are not explicitly designated in
the rules as Tradeable, thus trading them for A$ seems in contrary to
the rules.

A TRUE on this CFJ would have closed what is known as "Malenkai's
Loophole".  Alas, I do not believe you can find a TRUE on this CFJ, or
a similar one, under the current rules, anyway.

I could talk about this forever, I wish it wasn't late.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #251
*******************************