Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #254
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Sunday, September 22 1996      Volume 01 : Number 254

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:46:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Resigtrar - new player

We have a new player in the game
Wendy Peterson, e-mail  [email-masked]
she has not chosen an ackanomic name yet.

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 05:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Malenkai:

> 7) CotC page done, a couple of CFJs have come in real recently, they'll
> have to wait 'till tomorrow, its late.  Does anyone look at this page?

I have, on more than one occasion.

b

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Other duties

/dev/joe:

> All players are in their homes, except breadbox is in the Library.

Actually, I recently slouched over to the Hall of Elders.

No matter. I hear the Fat Lady singing (and it sounds a little like
the "Salve Regina" from Francis Poulenc's "Dialogue of the
Carmelites," although I may just be projecting), so I think I shall
return home.

It seems only appropriate, and besides, I want to wait for the mail to
bring me my Chartreuse Goose Egg.

b

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 10:14:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 297 (Techno)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 297
  Subject: Paradox of winning by Paradox
Initiator: IdiotBoy
    Judge: Techno (selected Sep 22, 1996, 10:17h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

It can not be determined with finality whether it is possible to win
by paradox.

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

Rule 215 gives judges the power to use game custom to make a decision when
the Rules are "silent, inconsistent, or unclear" on a statement in question.
Inconsistent must be construed as to mean that the Rules could be
interpreted to both allow and disallow an action or interpretation. This
would give Judges the power to resolve questions where a statement or action
is equally legal and illegal.

Rule 219 states that if "some action appears equally legal and illegal" then
the player may call for Judgement on the action.  If the Judgement is
returned TRUE than the player is declared the winner.

The Rules state that Judges are required to use game custom to resolve
potential paradoxes (inconsistencies) and also that Judges are to return a
verdict which declares a paradox to exist.  The proper course for a Judge
can not be determined.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 10:25:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 288 Verdict

CFJ 288 has been judged TRUE.  

The initiator will win the game 4 days from the date of this post if this
judgement is not appealed.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 288
  Subject: Pious Player Prosthesis Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Mellon (declined to judge)
    Judge: fnord (selected Sep 16, 1996, 11:16h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The legality of wearing a Prosthetic Forehead, if one is a member
of a Church whose Church policy contains both the lines, "Thou shalt wear a
Prosthetic Forehead at all times," and, "Thou shalt not wear a Prosthetic
Forehead," cannot be determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning: The relevant rule sections are R775, 3c, which reads,

"All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they are members
of
the Church."

and R818, paragraph 3, which begins,

"A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they own..."

Since neither rule makes relevant precedence claims, R775 takes
precedence, from which we can conclude that a Church's policy may both
limit the rights of its members to wear Prosthetic Foreheads and require
them to do so, and that such limitations or requirements are in this case
legally binding as long as a player is a member of that Church.  If a
Church policy both forbids and requires the wearing of a Prosthetic
forehead, since there is no means in the rules to establish precedence of
contradictory statements within Church Policy, R773 3c become a
self-contradictory statement, and the Church member's right to wear the
Prosthetic Forehead cannot be determined.

fnord's Reasoning:

Yikes, this was tougher than I expected.  Should have either
declined it or gotten Malenkai's help while he was still my
Mentor.  I was equally willing to say TRUE and FALSE to this one,
for rather strong reasons.

Church Rule never says that Church Policy must be determinate,
nor that it must be self-consistent, nor that it be
non-self-contradictory, nor even that it follow the other Rules,
although one would expect compliance with the rules.  Therefore,
Church Policy is able to dictate the actions of the Church's
members in any way it sees fit.

CFJ286 already has precedence for not judging INVALID a CFJ that
is rhetorical, although it does not cover hypothetical.

In this (admittedly rhetorical, and therefore, probably should
have INVALIDated the CFJ, although precedence says it's okay)
instance, the people in the hypothetical Church in question
should both wear the Forehead and not wear the forehead at the
same time.  In either case, they would be abiding by the Church
Policy and also *not* abiding by the Church Policy.  This would
lead them to be following and also breakig the Rules at the same
time.  Now, while *I* personally have no problem with something
being in two states at the same time (having studied entirely too
much physics), the Rules do not allow for something to be both
Legal and Illegal at the same time.  Therefore, I cannot see any
other verdict for this CFJ than TRUE.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:18:01 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Niccolo's objection to Malenkai's Gambit

Malenkai has repeatedely pointed out a potential for a major scam in the
concept of Party Gravity. Malenkai claimed that it is possible to two
Parties to cooporate, such that one Party throws away its pieces in favor
of the other Party. The latter Party will increase its Weight, and,
according to Malenkai, will have the highest Weight, and always get the
highest Party Gravity rewards.
I believe that is the gist of Malenkai's Gambit.

While I accept that such is possible, I maintain that it is not guaranteed
to succeed, and in fact, may not even be profitable.

The general idea of Party Gravity that Parties, or Swingers periodically
receive reward according to their performance in PartyChess. An idea that
has been preserved in both the repeals form of the rule (a repeal which I
supported for different reason than the ones given by Malenkai), and the
newly proposed one, which you should find on the queue soon, was the
Swinger(s) with the highest Absolute Weight gets the biggest reward, the
secodn highest, gets a smaller reward, and the third highest gets an even
smaller reward. In the new proposal, as well as in a failed ammendment to
the previous one, the reward were given only if Weights were non-zero ( in
the new propoal this is restricted further to poitive Weight.
This means that if there are not ties, and for non-zero Weights there
usually won't be, there will always be at least one Swinger who gets no
rewards.

Let's suppose that party Scam1 throws eir pieces away to Scam2, and that
Scam2 achieves, as a result, the higehst Absolute Weight. The latter, btw,
is not a neccesary result of such a scam, more on that later.

The above described acts also mean that Scam1 will always necessarilly
attain the lowest possible Weight, furthermore it will necessarily mean
that there are two other Swingers, not in on the Scam, who are also
getting rewards, which together, equal the rewards that Scam2 is getting.

Conclusion - even assuming the highest possible success for such a scam,
it necessarily award non-scamming Swinger as much as it does scamming
Swinger. When you look at it this way, it is no longer much of a scam.

Surely, if there are two Swingers with equal Weights, then it is possible
for a 4th Swinger to get a small reward as well, but this also means that
the combined reward of the two or more non-scamming Swingers is at least
equal to the combined rewards of the scamming Swingers.  Once again, this
is a scam that actually rewards the people who are not in on the scam.

It has also not been established that such a scam would actually give
Scam2 the highest Weight.
If we have wo scamming Swingers, there are also at least 2 non-scamming
Swingers (if enough players participate to make a 3 Swinger scam, then
that is usually enough to pass most proposals anyway, in that case the
scam simply gives no benefits, since the scamming group can achieve
similar results without the scam - in the case of being rewarded votes.
Either way, it's immensely more difficult to work out a 3-Swinger scam,
one intentional loser cannot be divided up among two winners, you'd
need two intentional losers, a case which would maintain the validity of
all the above arguments)

When 2 Swinger are scamming, it is sufficient to have 2 non-scamming
Swingers, even mildly cooperating, can prevent it from achieving the
highest Weight. Two Swingers could put it in a position where it could
either pursue the scam, or defend against their attacks. Similarly, a
Swinger would do better to try to get a good defensible position than
capturing suicidal pieces. In order for this Scam to have even mild
success, the non-scamming Swingers would have to be blind not to see it,
or take advantage of the situation.

Consider now the proposal that awards points to Swingers based on Weight.
First, it is quite common in Ackanomic to receive points for many game
actions, why not for PartyChess performance?  The only person getting any
points is the Swinger itself. This makes the scam potential even weaker.
What has a Party to gain from such a scam, other than get some points for
the Swinger. Even if they change Swinger's for every couple of weeks, it
will merely divide up the points among them, while other Swinger would
get points continously. Points are a good incentive to play PartyChess
well.

For the time being, I think this would a good rule.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:57:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 277 Verdict

CFJ 277 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 277
  Subject: Suspending the Suspended Sentence
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: this is not a name (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: Brinjal (failed to respond)
4th Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Sep 12, 1996, 13:26h New York Time)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The "sentence" part of the penalty assigned to this is not a name
by IdiotBoy in CFCJ 113 is not one of the allowed classes of penalties
for a CFCJ, so this part of the penalty should be ignored.

Reasoning:

That penalty was:

  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.
 
Rule 710 allows for a sentence in Gaol to be given as a penalty on a
CFCJ judged TRUE, but it specifically defines when the sentence should be
carried out.  No rule allows for a "suspended sentence" to be given.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

I agree with /dev/joe's reasoning

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:05:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 288 Appeal

IdiotBoy has appealed CFJ 288 to the Supreme Court.  His reasoning is
attached below.

I was also going to appeal it; but with a completely different approach.
I have just not gotten to it yet.  I shall add my reasoning via R 563.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
IdiotBoy wrote:
 
I don't disagree with the verdict (it CAN'T be determined with finality.)
But I don't see this is a valid CFJ, since this paradox does not exist
within the rules.  I could submit a CFJ of the variety ("The truth of the
statement "the judge will not find this CFJ to be true" cannot be determined
with finality.)  Also, will prove to be true, but hardly a basis for a
paradox win.  In fact it is another invalid CFJ.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:02:02 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential

On behalf of the people of Ackanomic, I would like to welcome our newest 
player to the game.  Has the Registrar chosen a Mentor for her yet?

Also, would the score keeper (once again) raise Habeous Corpus score by 
15 point for his Whamiol (which has yet to get anxious).

snowgod
president

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IdiotBoy works with you to maximize your investment potential.  Ask him 
how Waynenomics can work for you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BUY STUFF - Council For Generic Advertising
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 21:20:24 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

mr cwm has been selected as Mentor for the still Ackanomic nameless Wendy.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> mr cwm has been selected as Mentor for the still Ackanomic nameless Wendy.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
I think the Official Moron (if one were to exist) should assign names to
players who join without picking a name of eir own.  

(If I were the Official Moron and had such a priviledge, I'd name Wendy
"Dave Thomas")

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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:31:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

There's no rule against it, but some may consider rude to usurp the 
duties of offices which have yet to be filled, nay, even yet to exist.

Guy Fawkes

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > mr cwm has been selected as Mentor for the still Ackanomic nameless Wendy.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > 
> I think the Official Moron (if one were to exist) should assign names to
> players who join without picking a name of eir own.  
> 
> (If I were the Official Moron and had such a priviledge, I'd name Wendy
> "Dave Thomas")
> 
> IB
> --
> IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
> [email-masked]
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:35:03 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > mr cwm has been selected as Mentor for the still Ackanomic nameless Wendy.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > 
> I think the Official Moron (if one were to exist) should assign names to
> players who join without picking a name of eir own.  
> 
> (If I were the Official Moron and had such a priviledge, I'd name Wendy
> "Dave Thomas")
> 
> IB
> --
> IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
> [email-masked]> 

Not only do I support IdiotBoy for official moron, should such an office 
exist, I agree with him that the Official Moron should have the 
privilidge to name new players :)

Just a quick note... Back when I joined the game (and cpf was registrar) 
I was required to choose an Ackanomic name before I joined.  Perhaps that 
would be a good way to handle incoming players.

snowgod
president
who is using a unix shell with no .sig file but would like to remind you 
to buy bonds from IdiotBoy anyway

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> 
> There's no rule against it, but some may consider rude to usurp the 
> duties of offices which have yet to be filled, nay, even yet to exist.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
Hey!  It's unregulated!  Besides it was hypothetical, and therefore invalid.

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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:01:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

Phillip R. Ackley wrote:

> Not only do I support IdiotBoy for official moron, should such an office
> exist, I agree with him that the Official Moron should have the
> privilidge to name new players :)

No, he should not.
 
> Just a quick note... Back when I joined the game (and cpf was registrar)
> I was required to choose an Ackanomic name before I joined.  Perhaps that
> would be a good way to handle incoming players.

Yes, cpf made you acknowledge the welcome message, and have your name
chosen, before you joined.  That would mitigate the "Tim" situation.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:26:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm mentor for Wendy

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
> 
> > Not only do I support IdiotBoy for official moron, should such an office
> > exist, I agree with him that the Official Moron should have the
> > privilidge to name new players :)
> 
> No, he should not.
> 
> > Just a quick note...Back when I joined the game (and cpf was registrar)
> > I was required to choose an Ackanomic name before I joined.  Perhaps that
> > would be a good way to handle incoming players.
> 
> Yes, cpf made you acknowledge the welcome message, and have your name
> chosen, before you joined.  That would mitigate the "Tim" situation.
> 
> Malenkai
>
Is this required, or optional? I could do this.
Currently what I do, I wait after I send the welcome message to see that
it doesn't bounce. I've a couple of problems of tht sort before. 
My current policy is that if the message bounces I first try to locate the
proper address of the person who wanted to join (if I hadn't done that, we
might have missed out on at least one current player). If I can't find
them within a couple of days, I give up. I could adopt cpf's policy.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:47:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 297 (Techno)

> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 297
>   Subject: Paradox of winning by Paradox
> Initiator: IdiotBoy
>     Judge: Techno (selected Sep 22, 1996, 10:17h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It can not be determined with finality whether it is possible to win
> by paradox.
> 
> IdiotBoy's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 215 gives judges the power to use game custom to make a decision when
> the Rules are "silent, inconsistent, or unclear" on a statement in question.
> Inconsistent must be construed as to mean that the Rules could be
> interpreted to both allow and disallow an action or interpretation. This
> would give Judges the power to resolve questions where a statement or action
> is equally legal and illegal.
> 
> Rule 219 states that if "some action appears equally legal and illegal" then
> the player may call for Judgement on the action.  If the Judgement is
> returned TRUE than the player is declared the winner.
> 
> The Rules state that Judges are required to use game custom to resolve
> potential paradoxes (inconsistencies) and also that Judges are to return a
> verdict which declares a paradox to exist.  The proper course for a Judge
> can not be determined.

First, if 215 and 219 are truly in conflict, which I do not believe to be 
the case, it is a clear time to use numerical precedence, and 215 comes 
out on top.  However, 215 and 219 are not in conflict.

Rule 215 does not, IMO, as IdiotBoy expounds, direct Judges to use game 
custom to *resolve* potential paradoxi, instead, and I quote, "the Judge 
shall consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game 
in reaching a decision."  Thus, if the Judge must consider game custom, 
game custom will help him arrive at a verdict of TRUE if the paradox 
exists, FALSE if it does not, UNDECIDED if a judgment cannot be decided, 
and INVALID if the CFJ was not valid.  Game custom does not prevent a 
verdict from being delivered; it is one of a Judge's many tools in 
deciding a CFJ.

Speaking of game custom, I think there is a very strong game custom that 
paradox wins are indeed possible.

There is one other point I might make re this CFJ, but I'll save it until 
if and when this is decided TRUE.

Guy Fawkes
paradox pending

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 15:52:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: party shift

With all due respect, I hereby leave the FUN party.

Pending their approval, I am joining (None Yet).

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:14:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 288 (breadbox)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 298
  Subject: Holy Rule-Breakers
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 22, 1996, 17:18h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

A member of a Church may, indeed must, ignore any provision of that
Church's policy which would require him or her to break the Rules.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 775, Mutable, section 3, c:

> c. All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they
> are members of the Church.

R 101, Immutable:

> All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the
> form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in accordance
> with currently existing game custom. [...]

R 101 requires players always follow the rules.  It certainly has 
precedence, if it doesn't outright neuter R 775 entirely via R 108.

If there is a R 108 style neutering of R 775, and I'm to tired to explore
that side of it now, then clearly Churches and Church Policy would fall
under the auspices of R 115, thus it is obvious that such policies,
regardless of what they required a player to do, would hold no sway
whatsoever over the player's actions, thus, by R 101, that player would
be mandated to ignore any which required rule-breaking behaviour.  

Even if R 775 is not wholly void and without effect, it seems to me that
R 775, 3c is too weak to require a player to break R 101, even if the
Church Policy mandates such.  Therefore the player can ignore such 
illegal-behaviour-forcing provisions, and a verdict of TRUE is indicated.

A verdict of TRUE here should also indicate a verdict of FALSE on CFJ 
288.  I will attempt to demonstrate how later.  I wish I had the time to
do this when CFJ 288 was filed, alas, I did not, but I cannot let it
pass now.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:56:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Invoking R 563

I am invoking R 563 in the matter of CFJ 288.  The reasoning shall be
public, and read as below:

Malenkai
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe CFJ 288 should have been judged FALSE.  I would appeal it,
but IdiotBoy has done so already.  His reasoning is completely different
than mine, so I at least wished to add the reasoning I would have used,
and wish that the Supreme Court consider it.

First of all, I want to talk about Invalid for a little bit.  I do not
believe this, and other CFJs, should be ruled Invalid unless the statement
is malformed, self-contradictory, or multiple statements, etc.

Hypothetical statements do not fall into this category.  If the statement
is worded so that TRUE or FALSE is possible, one of those verdicts should
be rendered, unless it is a statement of the type above.  There is a
plethora of hypothetical statements in the CFJ archive that have been
judged TRUE or FALSE without a problem.  The fact that someone could win
the game as a result of a particular CFJ verdict does not justify the
cop-out of judging it Invalid.  It is the statement that is under 
judgement, not the reasoning or the consequences of the verdict.

Thus I would like to reverse this growing trend of game custom, and am
going for a verdict of FALSE, not Invalid, on CFJ 288, the proper verdict,
IMO.

A verdict of FALSE can be arrived at from 2 different lines of reasoning,
each of which is independent of the other:

The first is based on CFJ 298.  If CFJ 298 is judged TRUE, CFJ 288 should
be judged FALSE.

If CFJ 298 is judged TRUE because R 775 is neutered via R 108, then churches
and church policy come under R 115.  Reasoning similar to that of CFJ 283
will alleviate the alledged paradox in CFJ 288.

If CFJ 298 is judged TRUE, but R 775 stands, the following will alleviate
the paradox:

Hypothetical Church Policy States:
The member must wear a prosthetic forehead.
The member must not wear a prosthetic forehead.

It is not possible to follow both dictums.  One or the other will be
followed.  In following one, the other will be not followed.  This 
not following is a violation of R 775, 3c, hence is a violation of the
rules.  If CFJ 298 is TRUE, however, the provision which forces this
violation of the rules may, indeed must, be ignored.  Thus the paradox
is alleviated.  The provision opposite of what the member choose to follow
may be ignored, per a TRUE on CFJ 298.

The second argument will alleviate the paradox even if CFJ 298 is not 
judged TRUE, although I do not see *how* it cannot be judged TRUE.

Church policy mandates doing something illegal/impossible.  In order
to comply with R 101, and not break R 775, 3c, the member will be forced
to leave the church, per R 775, 3c, second part.  Thus whether or not the
ex-member may wear a forehead can be determined with finality; in fact,
R 818 specifies the conditions of doing so.  I note that in this senerio,
all members will be forced to leave the church as soon as its policy is 
asking them to break the rules/do something impossible, thus the church
will dissolve, leaving it with no paradoxical policy, or even existance,
whatsoever.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 18:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 563

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> First of all, I want to talk about Invalid for a little bit.  I do not
> believe this, and other CFJs, should be ruled Invalid unless the statement
> is malformed, self-contradictory, or multiple statements, etc.
> 
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion. ;)  The problem with the listing
of verdicts in the rules is that the terms are NOT defined.  There is no
clear guidance about which verdict to return (except perhaps, true)

> Hypothetical statements do not fall into this category.  If the statement
> is worded so that TRUE or FALSE is possible, one of those verdicts should
> be rendered, unless it is a statement of the type above.  There is a
> plethora of hypothetical statements in the CFJ archive that have been
> judged TRUE or FALSE without a problem.  The fact that someone could win
> the game as a result of a particular CFJ verdict does not justify the
> cop-out of judging it Invalid.  It is the statement that is under 
> judgement, not the reasoning or the consequences of the verdict.
>
<snip of detail to end>
 
The "cop out" was mainly pointing out how these sorts of statements could be
used to win the game.  I think all CFJs should be judged Invalid if they do
not deal with the current ruleset. (Yes, I think that CFJs on proposals
ought to be judged invalid, as well, unless the submission/voting/etc
procedures are in violation of the rules.  But then I am a proponent of
Ackanomic Judicial Activism, as well.)  I believe this is what Invalid
means.
So, my cop out only served to point out the dangers (one of which is an
unjustified win) of allowing such statements to be "judged on their merits"
 
I think these sorts of multiple arguments on a single CFJ are healthy.
Several arguments can be advanced for the SC to consider.  I welcome
Malenkai's involvement, especially since he has much greater experience in
these endeavours than I.

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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:46:22 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 563

This is actually the first treatment of the CFJ within context. CFJ 288
attempted to judge R775 3c in the context of the rule-set, but outside the
context of the rule it is a part of.
Malenkai's interpretation is very close to the original intent behind one
of the provisions of R775, that Church policy can't prevent a member from
leaving a Church, and that once a member leaves a Church, e is no longer
bound by Church policy. 

Niccolo Flychuck
Supporting the appeal.

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:
 
> The second argument will alleviate the paradox even if CFJ 298 is not 
> judged TRUE, although I do not see *how* it cannot be judged TRUE.
> 
> Church policy mandates doing something illegal/impossible.  In order
> to comply with R 101, and not break R 775, 3c, the member will be forced
> to leave the church, per R 775, 3c, second part.  Thus whether or not the
> ex-member may wear a forehead can be determined with finality; in fact,
> R 818 specifies the conditions of doing so.  I note that in this senerio,
> all members will be forced to leave the church as soon as its policy is 
> asking them to break the rules/do something impossible, thus the church
> will dissolve, leaving it with no paradoxical policy, or even existance,
> whatsoever.
> 

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 20:31:41 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1267

Proposal 1267 - Sun Sep 22 20:31:40 EDT 1996
Freedom of Religion
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 775 to remove all occurrances of the word "not" from section
6 of the rule.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 20:31:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1268

Proposal 1268 - Sun Sep 22 20:31:59 EDT 1996
Commission d'Arts
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Create a new rule reading:

1) Upon the end of a cycle which exceeded 30 days in length, or as
otherwise directed by the rules, The "Comission d'Arts" (Commission)
shall begin session, which shall last for 7 days.  The Senators shall
be the Comissioners, thus composing this body.  Exception:  No Commission
shall be started if it has been less than 60 days since any previous
one has been started.  This clause takes precedence over any other in any
Mutable rule dealing with the starting of a Commission d'Arts session.

2) At the end of the session, the Comission shall produce, and publically
post, a report listing 4 Nominees for the Silver Moon award.  A Nominee
must be a work of art from Acka's past, such as a Silly Vacation Hat
description, Phoebe post, Gaoler poem, Prosthetic Forehead, etc.  Rules,
Proposals, and other written works are also permissable, but are
discouraged as Nominees, unless they are truly meritorious.  One constraint
is that the Nominee must be publically accessable from a web page
maintained by the Web-Harfer.  Material created by non-active players
is discouraged as a Nominee.
  
3) Each Nominee in a given report must be unique, but Nominees from a 
previous
report may appear on the current one, except that no Nominee which
previously won a vote under this rule may be a Nominee again.

4) If the Comission fails to produce the report in within the constraints
of this rule, each Senator is placed in Contempt.

5) Upon the issuance of the report, the Assistant Tabulator will take
votes for 3 days, during which each player may vote once on which
Nominee they prefer, after which the voting results and winning Nominee
are released.  If the voting is tied at the end of the 3 day voting
period, the Assistant Tabulator shall break the tie by random
determination.

6) Upon a winning Nominee being announced, the author (or player who
originally posted the material, in the case of something like Phoebe's
wisdom) of the material is awarded the Silver Moon, and a cash prize of
A$75, if they are a registered player.  If they are not a registered
player, their Undead begin haunting said entities, unless there is no
Undead associated with the author, in which case no awards are created
or bestowed.

7) The Silver Moon recipient, if a registereed player, is required to make
an acceptance speech, not to exceed 10,000 words, unless they are in Gaol,
in which case they will be represented by a cardboard cutout on wheels,
which will lower the whole tone of the occasion, and they will lose 5
points for detracting from the festivities (although they stil receive the
above awards, of course).

8) It is a duty of the Web-Harfer to so note on the web pages which
material has won a Silver Moon for its recipient.

9) A Silver Moon may only be created in accordance with the rules, and
awarded in accordance with the rules.  When one is required for this
occasion, it is made by that Frobozz Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic
Division.

{{10) all extant Silver Moons are destroyed.  A Comission d'Arts session
shall now begin.}}

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 20:32:16 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1269

Proposal 1269 - Sun Sep 22 20:32:15 EDT 1996
Newton, Apples, and Parties
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

A proposal to create a rule entitled "Newton, Apples, and Parties" which
contains the following text:

"
1. Let NoS be the the number of Swingers, excluding Swinger on Vacation,
including Acting Swingers.
2. Every two weeks, on Tuesday, Swingers, whose Weights are greater
than zero, are awarded points according to
the following scheme:
a. The Swinger or Swinger with the highest Absolute Weight receives 3
points.
b. The Swinger or Swingers with the second highest Absolute Weight
receives 2 points
c. The Swinger or Swingers with the third highest Absolute Weight receives
1 point.

A Swinger who received points accroding to one of those sections, is not
eligible to receive points by subsequent sections.

{{The first Tuesday after this proposal has been accepted, will be the
first Tuesday on which Swingers receive points according to this rule.}}

{{[At first I thought of includign provisions for higher scores when there
are more Swingers, but for the time being, I'd prefer to start with
something simpler.]}}

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 19:41:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1269

OK, but doesn't this make PartyChess sort of an exclusive Swinger Club 
where Swingers and Swingers alone earn points for actions really not 
related at all to the rest of the game?

Guy Fawkes

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 1269 - Sun Sep 22 20:32:15 EDT 1996
> Newton, Apples, and Parties
> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
> 
> A proposal to create a rule entitled "Newton, Apples, and Parties" which
> contains the following text:
> 
> "
> 1. Let NoS be the the number of Swingers, excluding Swinger on Vacation,
> including Acting Swingers.
> 2. Every two weeks, on Tuesday, Swingers, whose Weights are greater
> than zero, are awarded points according to
> the following scheme:
> a. The Swinger or Swinger with the highest Absolute Weight receives 3
> points.
> b. The Swinger or Swingers with the second highest Absolute Weight
> receives 2 points
> c. The Swinger or Swingers with the third highest Absolute Weight receives
> 1 point.
> 
> A Swinger who received points accroding to one of those sections, is not
> eligible to receive points by subsequent sections.
> 
> {{The first Tuesday after this proposal has been accepted, will be the
> first Tuesday on which Swingers receive points according to this rule.}}
> 
> 
> {{[At first I thought of includign provisions for higher scores when there
> are more Swingers, but for the time being, I'd prefer to start with
> something simpler.]}}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 20:48:39 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1232 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1232
  Proposal 1232 - Fri Sep 13 17:16:47 EDT 1996
  Needlin' a Naystack
  Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Quorum met : 21 eligible voters -- 17 players cast votes

11 YES votes   5 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Guy Fawkes gains 10 points.  0 -> 10

11 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   0               
  Brinjal                                     =   0               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =   0               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =   0               
  Bascule                FUN                  =   0               
  Bash                   Underworld           =   0               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   0               
  Guy Fawkes             (None Yet)           =  10               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   0               
  Uncle Sam              Underworld           =   0               

5 NO votes:  3 points each
  Malenkai               FUN                    0 -> 3            
  /dev/joe               Vulcan                 0 -> 3            
  Techno                 Underworld             0 -> 3            
  breadbox                                      0 -> 3            
  Wayne                  Underworld             0 -> 3            

1 PRESENT votes:
  fnord                                        =   0

4 ABSTENTIONS:
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Habeous Corpus                              
  skinny                                      

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:
  Tim                                         
  Wendy                                       

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1232 - Fri Sep 13 17:16:47 EDT 1996
Needlin' a Naystack
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend the 2nd and 3rd sentences of R431 to read:

"Absention from a vote or voting on a proposal which was retracted, 
deemed invalid, or otherwise removed from consideration does not count as 
making a series of votes nonconsecutive.  In other words, no one can vote 
No for more than 7 proposals which were not retracted, deemed invalid, or 
otherwise removed from consideration before having to vote Yes for one."

{{[The way the current rule stands, it would be perfectly acceptable to 
vote no seven times, write a proposal, vote yes for it, retract it, eat 
the 2 point penalty and vote no another seven times.  Just because the 
Tabulator isn't required to count the votes doesn't mean the vote doesn't 
count.  Just because it was never accepted or rejected doesn't mean it's 
not a proposal.]}}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #254
*******************************