Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #283
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, October 9 1996      Volume 01 : Number 283

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 13:15:20 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more stickers

In the spirit of goodwill, I accept on of Niccolo Flychucks wonderful 
campaign stickers.  Now i just need find the perfect place to put it...

snowgod
running for president

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 13:44:56 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic: Call For Judgement 

The following CFJ was submitted in internomic.  Thring has been chosen to 
judge.  If anyone has any comments on this CFJ, please feel free to post 
them to me and I will forward them to the list.  Or you may do so 
directly at [email-masked]

Call For Judgement 102
Issued by: Agora
Assigned to: Thring

Statement:
   Proposal 311, if it is a Proposal, violates Rule 204.

Arguments of Caller:
   Rule 204 says that a Proposal must contain exactly one Rule Change.
   Rule 106 says that a Rule Change is either creation, amendment, or
   repeal of a Mutable Rule, or a Transmutation.
   Proposal 311 contains no transmutation, nor does it contain an amendment
   of a Mutable rule. Instead it seeks to amend a Rule which is not Mutable
   (though it may become so later).  Under the current Rules, this is not a
   Rule Change.

   Regards,
   -- elJefe, Speaker of Agora Nomic

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 18:15:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
 
> Per R115 I am creating some stickers that read "Only snowgod is wearing a
> blue cartoon parka.  What more reason do you need to vote for him?".  I
> offer one to every player.  Are R115 Stickers tradeable? :)

R 115 entities are not tradeable, qv CFJ 284 and R 484.  As for the
stickers themselves, the speaker does not track R 115 entities, sorry,
impeach me :)

Furthermore, if patent infringement III passes, all R 115 entities
are toast anyway.

Malenkai
overworked

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 18:15:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
 
> Per R115 I am creating some stickers that read "Only snowgod is wearing a
> blue cartoon parka.  What more reason do you need to vote for him?".  I
> offer one to every player.  Are R115 Stickers tradeable? :)

R 115 entities are not tradeable, qv CFJ 284 and R 484.  As for the
stickers themselves, the speaker does not track R 115 entities, sorry,
impeach me :)

Furthermore, if patent infringement III passes, all R 115 entities
are toast anyway.

Malenkai
overworked

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 14:21:22 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
>  
> > Per R115 I am creating some stickers that read "Only snowgod is wearing a
> > blue cartoon parka.  What more reason do you need to vote for him?".  I
> > offer one to every player.  Are R115 Stickers tradeable? :)
> 
> R 115 entities are not tradeable, qv CFJ 284 and R 484.  As for the
> stickers themselves, the speaker does not track R 115 entities, sorry,
> impeach me :)
> 
> Furthermore, if patent infringement III passes, all R 115 entities
> are toast anyway.
> 
> Malenkai
> overworked
4~

Hey, No problem.  That's just the answer I wanted to hear.

snowgod
running for president
> 

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 18:16:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Furthermore, if patent infringement III passes, all R 115 entities
> are toast anyway.
> 
> Malenkai
> overworked

Really?  The way I read it, Patent Infringement III only affects those R 
115 entities whose name is found elsewhere in the rules.  Since the 
campaign stickers are not defined in the rules, I think they would 
survive the proposal's passsage, while if someone were to somehow have a 
R 115 Prosthetic Forehead that they just so happened to instantiate prior 
to R 818's passage, that PF would be toast.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 19:29:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Furthermore, if patent infringement III passes, all R 115 entities
> > are toast anyway.
> >
> > Malenkai
> > overworked
> 
> Really?  The way I read it, Patent Infringement III only affects those R
> 115 entities whose name is found elsewhere in the rules.

You're right.  I guess I should read the proposal first.  mr cwm and I
kicked this around in RFC, and one version destroyed *all* R 115 entities
except frogs, because no one could determine with finality what existed.
This version destroys all that are defined by the rules.  This version
also does not grandfather my Bronze Torch :(.

The idea was that after that passed, they could be tracked.  Since no one
is volunteering to track them anyway, I guess its all the same that that
didn't make it into the proposal in that form.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

>
>R 115 entities are not tradeable, qv CFJ 284 and R 484.  As for the
>stickers themselves, the speaker does not track R 115 entities, sorry,
>impeach me :)
>
>Furthermore, if patent infringement III passes, all R 115 entities
>are toast anyway.
>

Ack(a)!  I would certainly never propose to toast all the R115 entities
that enliven this game.  Patent Infringement III only toasts those R115
entities which are in the same class as existing non-R115 entities (except
frogs).  That is, it has absolutely no effect on R115 stickers, for
example, until a sticker comes into existance by some other means.  So,
please don't vote against Patent Infringement III because you think it
will toast all R115 entities.  If it did that, I'd vote agianst it myself.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 20:47:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

mr cwm wrote:

> Ack(a)!  I would certainly never propose to toast all the R115 entities
> that enliven this game.  Patent Infringement III only toasts those R115
> entities which are in the same class as existing non-R115 entities (except
> frogs).  That is, it has absolutely no effect on R115 stickers, for
> example, until a sticker comes into existance by some other means.  So,
> please don't vote against Patent Infringement III because you think it
> will toast all R115 entities.  If it did that, I'd vote agianst it myself.

Sorry about spreading mis-information.  Vote yes for PI III.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 20:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stickers

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

>
>You're right.  I guess I should read the proposal first.  mr cwm and I
>kicked this around in RFC, and one version destroyed *all* R 115 entities
>except frogs, because no one could determine with finality what existed.
>This version destroys all that are defined by the rules.  This version
>also does not grandfather my Bronze Torch :(.
>
>The idea was that after that passed, they could be tracked.  Since no one
>is volunteering to track them anyway, I guess its all the same that that
>didn't make it into the proposal in that form.
>

Maybe we should go private with this, but I don't think any version
destroyed all R115 entities - that would be a rather drastic way to close
the Malenkai loophole.  Frogs are still exempted.  Toasting the Torch was
pretty much the point :) 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 21:02:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Perhaps The Most Important Message You'll Read All Year!

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> Ah, the endless variety of prosthetic foreheads!  And me, with 24 Rocks to
> Wind A String Around!  I use my rocks to purchase some foreheads.

> My next forehead purchase is very special.  This forehead is tall and
> angular and very wise looking.  It is made of fine crystal.  Etched into
> this crystal are a golden frog, a blue cross, and a rare tropical harf
> (which has never been seen in captivity).  Also etched, in a fine script,
> are the words "snowgod, snowgod he's our man!  If he can't do it, no one
> can!"  I transfer this forehead to Malenkai.

I am acking and wearing said forehead.

Malenkai
thanks

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 22:14:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal Verdict

On CFJ 299, the Supreme Court overturns the original decision to FALSE.

The original judge is penalized one point.

Oct 08 22:14 EDT: -1 Calvin N Hobbes: CFJ 299 overturned

Each justice is fined A$10 for the tardy verdict.
The initiator receives the Chartreuse Goose from Somewhere Else.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 299
  Subject: Personally Glorious Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Sep 24, 1996, 23:28h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The legality of omitting a rule's originator's name from the
official copy of the official rules, if that rule was created before Rule
682 and the originator is unknown, cannot be determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

If this CFJ receives a final verdict of TRUE, Guy Fawkes will
win the cycle in accordance with R219.

Rule 682 -- "For Personal Glory..." (excerpts)

"a) The official copy of the official rules should include with the text
of each rule the name of the originator of the rule and the date the rule
was enacted.

a)1) The originator's name should appear just below the title of the
proposal and before the text of the proposal.

[...]

c) The requirements in (a) and (c) do not have to apply to rules created
before the enactment of this rule if such data is not known."

To properly understand this, we must examine the meaning of "do not have
to apply."  IMO, it means that under those circumstances, the
requirements are *optional* -- it is legal to follow them; it is also
legal to ignore them.  This is not a paradox by itself.  Instead of one
action being legal and illegal, it merely creates a situation where two
opposite actions are both legal.

However, section c) is self-referential -- The requirements in (a) and
(c) do not have to apply to rules created before...

Therefore, if the conditions and of being created befre R682 and being of
unknown originator are true, sections (a) and (c) are optional.

There is no problem with (a) being optional.

If (c), however, is optional, a paradox arises.  It becomes legal for the
requirements of (a) to be relaxed, which is the case of the option of (c)
being in effect; it is equally legal for the requirements of (a) to be
enforced, which is the case of the of (c) not being in effect -- in this
case, it is illegal to omit the originator's name.

Thus, (c)'s optional nature causes two equally valid game-states to
exist; one in which the originator's name on an early rule where it is
unknown must be included anyway, and one in which the originator's name
may be omitted in such circumstances -- one in which the omission is
illegal and one in which it is legal.

Paradox.

Calvin N Hobbes Reasoning:

The reasoning by Guy Fawkes is well explained. By making both (a) and itself
optional, (c), the claim is that on the "recursive layer" (if we can call it
that) then (a) is made a requirement again and thus there are two paths, one
legal, and one illegal.

R219/1 specifies that a paradox occurs when "the legality of some action
cannot be determined with finality". Finality there is not. It would seem
there is a typo in 682 and that in (c), it was going to be (a) and (b), not
(a) and (c) that should have been "excluded". This simple correction has
been sent.

ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:

The question of the existence of a paradox in R682 depends upon
whether or not section (c) claims to abridge its own authority.  I will
attempt to demonstrate that it does not.

First, however, I point out that Rule 105 requires that rules guide play
in the form in which they were distributed for voting.  It is this
provision that makes the paradox claim in question be at all 
feasible -- without such a provision we would be free to ignore the
typographical error and interpret R 682 in the way it was intended.

That being the case, it is appropriate that I ask the Court to
scrutinize the language of R 682.  Section (c) says that in some
circumstances the _requirements_ of section (c) do not have to apply.
Although Sections (a) and (b) both place requirements on the text of
the official copy of the rules, section (c) makes no requirements
whatsoever -- rather, it makes allowances.  As only the requirements
of section (c) "do not have to apply," and there are no such
requirements, there is also, therefore, no paradox.

I also bring to the Court's attention CFJ 240, the reasoning of which
established implicit game custom, which has since been adhered to by the
Court, that an interpretation of the Rules which does not produce a
paradox is preferrable to an otherwise similarly reasonable one that does.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Supreme Court finds the Reasoning of ThinMan to be sound.

Penalty:

One point from the original Judge.

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 22:19:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 297 Appeal Verdict

On CFJ 297, the Supreme Court overturns the original decision to FALSE.

The original judge is penalized one point.

Oct 08 22:19 EDT: -1 Techno: CFJ 297 overturned

Each justice is fined A$15 for the tardy verdict.

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: TRUE
   Appeal: FALSE

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.

Malenkai's Appeal Reasoning:

[none]

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Rule 219 contains an explicit procedure whereby a player can win by
paradox, and this has happened in the past. Therefore it can be
determined with finality whether or not it is possible to win by
paradox.

Regarding the passage from Rule 215:

"When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the
statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider
currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in
reaching a decision."

The Supreme Court disagrees with the initiator's belief that this
phrase "must be construed as to mean that the Rules could be
interpreted to both allow and disallow an action or interpretation."
For instance, at one time there were many references within the rules
to "the official currency of Ackanomic", while other rules referred
to Ackadollars. This could be described as an inconsistency, without
the existence of a paradox.

Penalty for the original judge: 1 point

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 20:42:49 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Foreheads

I wish to thank snowgod for eir lovely gift,  with some reservations. 
The forehead,  and snowgod's campaign sounds sightly Democratic.  While I
do not object to Democrats,  and even vote for them,  I am not crazy
about the use of cartoon animals to portray the symbolism the parties
represent. Dumbo and a Jackass??

Could our current hopefuls in the Ackanomian Presidential race each
design a better Party mascot,  that we all may better distinguish what
they stand for?

I also graciously accept Niccolo Flychuck's sticker,  which I am using to
hold the forehead's tail down so it won't constantly obstruct my monitor
as I set it atop my computer console.  I will admire this gift for many
hours trying to come up with new Proposals that will do it justice.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 21:25:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: offer

My offer to trade 400 A$ for Bascule's The Really Big Blue Thing That 
Doesn't Do Much, Really is hereby retracted.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 21:35:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: sticker

I accept Niccolo Flychuck's campaign sticker and deftly rearrange the 
words on it to read, "Pay no attention to Niccolo Flychuck -- my 
Prosthetic Forehead for President."

I then slap it on my real head in place of my prosthesis while I am 
recovering from my sore head.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 23:33:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: stuff

1) By my records, snowgod spent A$144 on Rocks, A$72 each going to
Bascule and Habeous Corpus.

2) snowgod turned 22 rocks into foreheads leaving him with 2 rocks.

3) 9 players, including snowgod, accepted his gift foreheads so far,
that leaves snowgod with 13 foreheads + 2 he had from before, and
other players with varying numbers of them, in different states of
worn and unworn.

4) I have updated all of this on my player/entity page.  I have also
added gifs for most of the other objects in the game, including gadgets,
svh's, etc.

snowgod was good enough to do these for me, and there pretty cool, except
the Chartreuse Goose is an unusual shade of chartreuse (does anyone
know the wavelength of chartreuse light?).  I have asked him to do 4 more.

I have made all these images clickable so that they lead to the rule
which defines the entity, or a description/record/blueprint of the
specific entity in the case of prosthetic foreheads and gadgets.  This
could make it easier for newbies looking at the entity page.  Hopefully
/dev/joe will have time to add name anchors to snowgod's prosthetic
forehead post so that each of them will link to its description, not
the whole post.  In any case, any forehead before that post will link
to its description.

5) Also, all the money should be up to the minute with the exception of
the latest bond payments and salaries.
 
the page is at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackayp.htm

6) I have also updated all my other pages, so nothing should be "out of
date" now (all two of them, current events and CotC :)).

7) As for Internomic, P308 thru P312 need to be voted on.  They are now
on the web pages for internomic, but I am waiting to see if Amend R 970
passes, so the senate can vote on them.

Malenkai
speaker

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

Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stickers

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I believe Malenkai was correct in stating that R115 entities are not ...
tradable? tradeble? tradible? ... able to be traded, referencing R484 and
CFJ 284.  It is with regret, then, that I discover that I never had one of
Niccolo Flychuck's nice campaign stickers.  If, however, he would like to
create one directly into my posession, I know just where to put it.  (I
suppose I could create one myself, but it wouldn't quite be the same.)

- -mr cwm

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #283
*******************************