Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #286
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, October 10 1996      Volume 01 : Number 286

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 02:15:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 303 (Guy Fawkes)

Wayne failed to respond.

Oct 10 02:12 EDT: -10 Wayne: Failed to respond to CFJ 303

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 303
  Subject: Wrangled up in Donkey Business
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: this is not a name (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: Wayne (failed to respond)
4th Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 10, 1996, 02:12h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

If, in a single round of the game of Grab-a-Donkey, both player A and
player C grab player B's donkey (A, B, and C distinct), and player B
is on the Grab-a-Donkey Active List (GAL), player B will retain their
donkey (and thus remain on the GAL).

Malenkai's Reasoning:

First of all, clause D of R 1276 will not kick in, as its "if clause" is
false in this situation.

I don't really have a strong case for TRUE here, but I do have *a* case.

R 1276, clause C:

> C. If  one player ("A") chose to Grab another player's donkey ("B"), and
> if B did not Cover eir donkey, then B will lose eir donkey and be removed
> from the GAL at the start of the following Round.

This hinges on the rendering of the word "one", and its scope.  If the word
"one" is scoped for an entire round, TRUE is indicated, otherwise FALSE
is.  In this case, 2 players attempted to grab B's donkey in a given
round, therefore, clause C never fires, thus the grabbing actions have
no effect whatsoever, because nothing else is specified in the rules to
handle this case.  Note that whether or not B covered their donkey
matters not in this reading.

Lets look at the FALSE case, and see if the judge has any comments on
this interpretation, if FALSE is returned:

If B covered their donkey, then A thru Z can grab it and nothing will
happen.  If B did not cover their donkey, then B loses it, and is removed
from the GAL next turn, the only question is, who gets the donkey?

I can see an argument for whoever grabbed it first, or whoever grabbed
it last.  I can also see an argument for *both* getting it, but that
case is weak.  My reading indicates the *last* player to grab it gets
it, in this multiple grab senerio.

This is just one of the areas that must be cleaned up in the rewrite.
There are others, I'll leave those to other players to discover (in some
cases they've been discovered), and other CFJs

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:44:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 303 (Guy Fawkes)

I accept Judgment, and I hope to get a verdict out soon so we can get on 
with the game.

Guy Fawkes

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Guy Fawkes has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 303
>   Subject: Wrangled up in Donkey Business
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: this is not a name (declined to judge)
> 2nd Judge: Robin Hood (failed to respond)
> 3rd Judge: Wayne (failed to respond)
> 4th Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 10, 1996, 02:12h EDT)

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

OK - I'm confused.  Responses have been posted to the effect that the
Brass Monkey could not climb a Gaol which consists of an infinite stack
of constant-sized cells in a finite time.  On the other hand, there seems
to be general agreement that an infinite number of geometrically reducing
cells would fit in a finite area (or volume).

Why can't we ask the Brass Monkey to increase its speed geometrically, so
that the time it spends climbing each cell is geometrically reducing?  If
we get a finite result when we ask about geometrically shrinking areas,
shouldn't we get a finite result when we ask about geometrically shrinking
times?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:31:47 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: President

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>As long as our Presidential debate has delved into a topographical 
>muddle, may I ask this?  Exactly how did the Machine That Goes *ping* fit 
>into your House when the Blue Thing was already there?

As I wrote elsewhere regarding the Brass Monkey: because
the rules said so.  Ackaphysics is a very strange thing.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:02:10 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: President, etc.

mr cwm wrote:

>OK - I'm confused.  Responses have been posted to the effect that the
>Brass Monkey could not climb a Gaol which consists of an infinite stack
>of constant-sized cells in a finite time.  On the other hand, there seems
>to be general agreement that an infinite number of geometrically reducing
>cells would fit in a finite area (or volume).
|--------^^^^^^
Make that "could."
>   
>Why can't we ask the Brass Monkey to increase its speed geometrically, so
>that the time it spends climbing each cell is geometrically reducing?  If
>we get a finite result when we ask about geometrically shrinking areas,
>shouldn't we get a finite result when we ask about geometrically shrinking
>times?

The question is a good one.  In fact, mr cwm is right again -- to a
point.
If the monkey climbs from cell n to cell n+1 at velocity 2^n cells/sec,
then the total time required to climb to the top would be 2 seconds.
This, however, depends upon tossing relativity out the window.  As I
have
noted, Ackaphysics is very strange; I would not be surprised to find
that
it is inconsistent with relativity in other ways, too.

I am, therefore, invoking R115 to instantiate a thick, dusty tome
entitled
"Relativity," and throwing it out the window of the Ackanomic House of
Pancakes.  That done, I am now destroying the aforementioned tome.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:25:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

ThinMan has pointed out (and illustrated) that relativity must be thrown
out the window for the Brass Monkey to climb an infinitely tall Gaol in a
finite time.  Does our other option, the geometrically shrinking cells
fitting into a finite space also involve throwing something out the
window?  What would it mean for the dimension of a Gaol cell to be less
than the Planck length?

- -mr cwm
 who finds such questions much easier to ask than to answer

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Phillip R. Ackley spake thusly
> 
> I, snowgod, have commisioned two poems from the Poet Laureate.  I have 
> been qouated a fee of A$30, which I agree to pay.  These poems must be 
> completed by 10/10/96.

I acknowledge this transaction.

Here are the two poems I have wrought for our past, and hopefully once
again, President snowgod.

Limerick for re-election

With harfiness so seldomly found
And decisions quietly profound
Promoting Harf and great Fun!
Snowgod is the one
For presiding over our Nomic un-round!

Leading to the Future

Verily he has led us
On against the tides and
Tribulations that
Ensue when many meet as one.

Standing up for all that is harf
Now he wants you to support him again
On his quest to lead us
With Fun and Harf his
Goals for
Our future
Decided by you, his fellow players.

fnord
Poet Laureate

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 12:48:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web stuff

I have had a complaint that my page at

http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackayp.htm

is too wide, in fact, 3 screens wide.  Is anyone else having this
problem?  If so, could you tell me your browser, version number, and
operating system, and where the page is cut off.

Thx
Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 12:06:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> OK - I'm confused.  Responses have been posted to the effect that the
> Brass Monkey could not climb a Gaol which consists of an infinite stack
> of constant-sized cells in a finite time.  On the other hand, there seems
> to be general agreement that an infinite number of geometrically reducing
> cells would fit in a finite area (or volume).
> 
> Why can't we ask the Brass Monkey to increase its speed geometrically, so
> that the time it spends climbing each cell is geometrically reducing?  If
> we get a finite result when we ask about geometrically shrinking areas,
> shouldn't we get a finite result when we ask about geometrically shrinking
> times?
> 
> -mr cwm

We should get a finite result when we talk about geometrically shrinking 
times BUT geometrically shrinking times require a speed that approaches 
infinity.  Problem is, the universe has a speed limit (3 x 10^8 m/s), and 
it is my understanding that Ackan mathematics, like vocabulary, is the 
same as that generally accepted outside Acka unless defined by the 
rules.  Relavistically speaking, once time dilation is figured in, the 
Monkey could perceive itself to be covering geometrically shrinking 
times, but in our perception, the monkey could only edge closer and 
closer to c in its quest to reach the top of an infinitely tall Gaol; we 
would never see it reach the top to make its declaration.  (However, we 
would notice that the monkey ceased to age while we withered and died...)

So, since the players do perceive that the monkey does indeed make its 
declaration, there are three alternatives.  One, the Gaol is finite, the 
volumes of its cells being part of a converging infinite series.  Two, 
the Gaol is infinitely tall, but the monkey does not climb all the way to 
the top (I was mistaken is thinking it had to reach the summit).  Three, 
the Gaol has an infinitely deep basement, but a very finite above-ground 
height.)  I note that if P1307 passes, the volume available for the earth 
to exist in is indeed finite, and so option 1 would be the most likely.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 12:21:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> ThinMan has pointed out (and illustrated) that relativity must be thrown
> out the window for the Brass Monkey to climb an infinitely tall Gaol in a
> finite time.  Does our other option, the geometrically shrinking cells
> fitting into a finite space also involve throwing something out the
> window?  What would it mean for the dimension of a Gaol cell to be less
> than the Planck length?
> 
> -mr cwm
>  who finds such questions much easier to ask than to answer

It would mean among other things that there exists a point where atomic 
theory ceases to apply within the Gaol.  The smallest empty area possible 
to constuct using real atoms would be the tetrahedral gap in the center of 
four hydrogen atoms somehow forced to exist in a closest-packed 
configuration.  (Unless, of course, you want to try to construct a cell 
with nucleons as walls, but the nucleus is more or less a big swirling 
mess of forces and potential energy fields that quite frankly, would most 
likely be bad for prisoner health.)  If you want to go that way, your 
smallest possible cell would be constructed by giving the prisoner-to-be 
a strong-force attraction to the other nucleons, giving them asympodic 
(sp?) freedom within the PE boundary of the nucleus, yet forbidding them 
to exist outside it, effectively creating a Gaol cell the size of an 
atomic nucleus.  This brings up the interesting idea of a jailbreak by means 
of quantum tunneling.

If I'm wrong with either of the two previous scenarios, please correct 
me, but I believe no matter how you cut it, eventually real matter just 
becomes too coarse for the mathematics of the geometric series Gaol.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 12:27:52 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc. 

>ThinMan has pointed out (and illustrated) that relativity must be thrown
>out the window for the Brass Monkey to climb an infinitely tall Gaol in a
>finite time.  Does our other option, the geometrically shrinking cells
>fitting into a finite space also involve throwing something out the
>window?  What would it mean for the dimension of a Gaol cell to be less
>than the Planck length?

Absolutely nothing.   :)

The goal as a fractal perimeter is still the better option.

>-mr cwm
> who finds such questions much easier to ask than to answer

CnH
who is wondering if his messages are just being ignored

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:38:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

(In response to Guy Fawkes' comments on relativity.)

If we understand that Ackanomian Physics (rather than Mathematics, as
relativity is necessary for an accurate description of our Physical
Universe, whereas I expect it's just another bunch of equations to
Mathematics) matches outside Physics unless rules specify otherwise, isn't
the infinite tower Gaol in trouble anyway?  Isn't the outside Universe
viewed as "finite but unbounded" (great phrase), so that an attempt to
build an infinite tower would result in a big (really big) ring or circle?
It would be like trying to draw a non-overlapping rectangle-thing (sorry,
I don't have much of a spherical-geometry vocabulary) with a finite width
but infinite length on the surface of a sphere. You'll never come to an
edge, but you'll run out of room just the same. 

How long an apple-peel can you make?

- -mr cwm

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

>
>We should get a finite result when we talk about geometrically shrinking 
>times BUT geometrically shrinking times require a speed that approaches 
>infinity.  Problem is, the universe has a speed limit (3 x 10^8 m/s), and 
>it is my understanding that Ackan mathematics, like vocabulary, is the 
>same as that generally accepted outside Acka unless defined by the 
>rules.  Relavistically speaking, once time dilation is figured in, the 
>Monkey could perceive itself to be covering geometrically shrinking 
>times, but in our perception, the monkey could only edge closer and 
>closer to c in its quest to reach the top of an infinitely tall Gaol; we 
>would never see it reach the top to make its declaration.  (However, we 
>would notice that the monkey ceased to age while we withered and died...)
>
>So, since the players do perceive that the monkey does indeed make its 
>declaration, there are three alternatives.  One, the Gaol is finite, the 
>volumes of its cells being part of a converging infinite series.  Two, 
>the Gaol is infinitely tall, but the monkey does not climb all the way to 
>the top (I was mistaken is thinking it had to reach the summit).  Three, 
>the Gaol has an infinitely deep basement, but a very finite above-ground 
>height.)  I note that if P1307 passes, the volume available for the earth 
>to exist in is indeed finite, and so option 1 would be the most likely.
>
>Guy Fawkes
>

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 13:58:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, CnH wrote:

>
>The goal as a fractal perimeter is still the better option.
>
>>-mr cwm
>> who finds such questions much easier to ask than to answer
>
>CnH
>who is wondering if his messages are just being ignored
>

Not at all.  I'm just not familiar enough with fractals to know how to ask
if there are any interesting consequences or potential problems.  I'll
have to leave that to someone else.  (Now I wish I'd saved your original
message.)

(Neat response to the Planck length question, BTW.)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:23:44 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: President, etc.

>Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>it is my understanding that Ackan mathematics, like vocabulary, is the 
>same as that generally accepted outside Acka unless defined by the 
>rules.

Same mathematics, I'll go along with.  But same physics?  Sorry,
that I don't accept as given.  There are too many examples among
the rules and rule-supported entities that violate real-world physics
in major ways for me to take real-world physics as more than a
general guideline in Acka.  A default, if you will, when no other
physical laws can be logically determined from the observations,
and then only if real-world physics is consistent with the situation.

I guess that's a long way of saying that Ackan physics is the same
as real world physics where not established otherwise by game
custom or the spirit of the game.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:33:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Relativity

Via R115, I am re-instantiating the dusty tome labeled "Relativity" that 
ThinMan had previously thrown out his window and destroyed.

I am also instantiating a box constructed of the perfect heat sink 
material.  It is currently open.  Due to the edges of the lid being lined with 
a highly powerful adhesive, once closed, it shall never again be openable.  In 
the box are a Geiger counter, a very low grade radioactive sample, a spring 
hammer, and a large vial of concentrated sulfuric acid.  The are connected 
such that should the Geiger counter ever detect radiation from the sample, it 
will trip the hammer and break the vial.  I am now placing the dusty tome in 
the box so that any spilled concentrated sulfuric acid will fall directly 
on it.  I am now closing the box.

It cannot be determined with finality whether Relativity exists in Acka.

Guy Fawkes
enjoying this far, far too much 

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:33:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: foreheads

Having recovered from my sore head, I am accepting and donning the 
forehead snowgod offered me.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:38:46 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Relativity

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>Via R115, I am re-instantiating the dusty tome labeled "Relativity" that 
>ThinMan had previously thrown out his window and destroyed.
>
>I am also instantiating a box constructed of the perfect heat sink 
>material.  It is currently open.  Due to the edges of the lid being lined
>with 
>a highly powerful adhesive, once closed, it shall never again be openable.
>In 
>the box are a Geiger counter, a very low grade radioactive sample, a spring 
>hammer, and a large vial of concentrated sulfuric acid.  The are connected 
>such that should the Geiger counter ever detect radiation from the sample, it
>will trip the hammer and break the vial.  I am now placing the dusty tome in 
>the box so that any spilled concentrated sulfuric acid will fall directly 
>on it.  I am now closing the box.
>
>It cannot be determined with finality whether Relativity exists in Acka.

Via R115 I am teleporting the afforementioned tome from
Guy Fawkes' box to my living room, where I am once again
throwing it out the window.  That redone, I am now destroying the
tome.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 22:47:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Relativity

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Via R115 I am teleporting the afforementioned tome from
> Guy Fawkes' box to my living room, where I am once again
> throwing it out the window.  That redone, I am now destroying the
> tome.
> 
> ThinMan
> 
But it still cannot be determined whether you destroyed Relativity,
although a strong case can be made for it being non-existent. This is
begining to look like a Laurel & Hardy thing.

Niccolo Flychuck

Presidential Candidate

A reasonable choice for unreasonable times.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:16:18 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Campaigning

I put on my Prosthetic Forehead, a very kind campaign bribe from 
snowgod.

It is large, bronze, shaped like a torch, and quite heavy. But that's 
not why I put it on. I admire my reflection, and read the message 
stamped across this forehead

"Re-Elect snowgod."

Re-Elect snowgod.

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:06:36 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Relativity

>Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>
>But it still cannot be determined whether you destroyed Relativity,
>although a strong case can be made for it being non-existent. This is
>begining to look like a Laurel & Hardy thing.

Good.  That is to say, it's all intended in fun; as I am sure
Guy Fawkes understands.  It certainly can be determined
whether I destroyed Relativity: I most definately destroyed
the R115 book entitled Relativity.  The fact that we cannot
see into Guy Fawkes' box is not germane, for the rules
back up my action.

None of that has any bearing on whether Ackan physics
includes relativity, however, so I shall perform a demonstration:
by R115 I hereby run 80 thousand times around the perimeter of
the Earth at the speed of light.

ThinMan
>Faster than a speeding bullet

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:20:32 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc. 

At 01:58 PM 10-10-96 -0400, mr cwm wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, CnH wrote:
>
>>
>>The goal as a fractal perimeter is still the better option.
>>
>>>-mr cwm
>>> who finds such questions much easier to ask than to answer
>>
>>CnH
>>who is wondering if his messages are just being ignored
>>
>
>Not at all.  I'm just not familiar enough with fractals to know how to ask
>if there are any interesting consequences or potential problems.  I'll
>have to leave that to someone else.  (Now I wish I'd saved your original
>message.)

Ok.

>(Neat response to the Planck length question, BTW.)

Thanks. I know I've been silent for a while, but the lack of comments (the
message wasn't that bad, was it?) makes it kind of hard to ease back into
the flow of things. And talking about relativity, infinity and the
impossible, my current experience does make me wonder it was, in fact, that
of absolute zero?

Ackanomic for an old hat: the coldest place in the universe?

Calvin "freezed out but thawing" Hobbes
who just finished voting on the current proposals

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:34:25 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Relativity 

At 02:33 PM 10-10-96 -0500, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>Via R115, I am re-instantiating the dusty tome labeled "Relativity" that 
>ThinMan had previously thrown out his window and destroyed.

Good for you.

>I am also instantiating a box constructed of the perfect heat sink 
>material.  It is currently open.  Due to the edges of the lid being lined with 
>a highly powerful adhesive, once closed, it shall never again be openable.  In 
>the box are a Geiger counter, a very low grade radioactive sample, a spring 
>hammer, and a large vial of concentrated sulfuric acid.  The are connected 
>such that should the Geiger counter ever detect radiation from the sample, it 
>will trip the hammer and break the vial.  I am now placing the dusty tome in 
>the box so that any spilled concentrated sulfuric acid will fall directly 
>on it.  I am now closing the box.

Schrodinger's book?  (sp?)

>It cannot be determined with finality whether Relativity exists in Acka.

Actually, by R115 and the fact everyone knows Geiger counters go "click
click click", players can simply listen to the box and determine if the
counter is clicking or not. It not being sound proof. (Same argument someone
else used about the cat - who would miaow).

So by R115, CnH takes the box and shrinks it to the size of an electron and
gives it an unknown true random momentum from a true random location. It
_may_ then become Heisendberg's box.   ;)

>Guy Fawkes
>enjoying this far, far too much 

Calvin "Zweistein" Hobbes
undetermining determining undetermination

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:47:06 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Relativity 

At 03:38 PM 10-10-96 -0500, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
>Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>Via R115, I am re-instantiating the dusty tome labeled "Relativity" that 
>>ThinMan had previously thrown out his window and destroyed.
>>
>Via R115 I am teleporting the afforementioned tome from
>Guy Fawkes' box to my living room, where I am once again
>throwing it out the window.  That redone, I am now destroying the
>tome.

Via R115, CnH changes the second thermodynamic law to say that the change in
entropy for a any process must always be less than zero.

Hence destroying a book is an unnatural process (no longer natural, never
equilibrium), and cannot be done in Acka.

CnH then takes the book and makes an infinite number of copies, and since he
gets better with each copies he makes, the time to creat copy n is given by
time(n) = (time(n-1)/2)^(n+1), with time(1) = 1 second. And puts a copy in
each cell of the Goal (of course) as reading for the prisoners.

Calvin "not really" Hobbes
who is supposed to be working right now

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:09:43 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Web stuff

> I have had a complaint that my page at
> 
> http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackayp.htm
> 
> is too wide, in fact, 3 screens wide.  Is anyone else having this
> problem?  If so, could you tell me your browser, version number, and
> operating system, and where the page is cut off.
> 
> Thx
> Malenkai
> 

I am using netscape gold 3.0, final release, and it is displaying 
your pages just like any other page.  Far superior to IE3.0.

Techno

> 
snowgod for president.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:22:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Codex of Kra

Never one to back down from the challenge of writing a proposal:

RFC - v1 - Codex of Kra - Malenkai

{{[this proposal assumes the passage of "Lots of Office Stuff"
and "Patent Infringement III".]}}

The Codex of Kra has recently been unearthed outside the window of
the Ackanomic House of Pancakes.  It is an ancient tome in an arcane
language, probably scribed by the Elder Ackanomians who created
the Machine that goes *ping*.  All that has been discovered about it
initially is that it seems to describe the laws of Ackanomican physics,
and the empirical observations and theory which led to the formulation
of those laws.
 
The optional office of AckaPhysicist exists.  It is a privilege of the
AckaPhysicist to translate the Codex of Kra, and report its contents
to the people of Acka [maintaining, or arranging to maintain a web page
of its contents would be ideal].

Such translations shall describe the Acka world and universe (multiverse?)
in terms of the Ackanomican physics, mathematics, observations,
theory, experiments, etc, as discovered by the Ancients, as well as any
additional conclusions the AckaPhysicist draws from his translations
of the Codex.

If any player believes a particular translation posted by the 
AckaPhysicist to be an obvious forgery, or otherwise doubts its accuracy,
they may publically accuse the AckaPhysicist of being a quack, if they
do so within three days of the translation being published.  In this case,
there will then be a three day voting period, during which players may
send one vote each to Count Tabula saying either "the Ancients weren't
that clueless", or "my own experiments have produced similar results".
No quorum is required; a simple majority of votes challenging the
translation's accuracy will prove that the AckaPhysicist is a quack
in the case of this particular translation.

If the AckaPhysicist is found to be a quack, he is fined A$25 for
misleading the masses with bogus science, and the translation in
question is stricken from the official records.  If the translation is
proven to be genuine, however, the accuser must publically apologize
to the AckaPhysicist, and pay him A$25 compensation for the damage
to his reputation.

Upon the AckaPhysicist being found a quack for the third time in a
single term, he is immediatly impeached from the office, and has 7
days to write a piece on Elvis returning from the dead in an alien
spaceship for one of Acka's newspapers, if any exist.

Any results not foung bogus are added to the official publication of 
the Codex of Kra.  Such writings become part of game custom where they
do not contradict the Rules.  Translations of the Codex of Kra hold
legal sway only if, when, and where the rules indicate that they do.
  
The Codex of Kra is unique and owned by no player, but it remains in
the custody of the AckaPhysicist while he is translating it, with
translated passages being available for view at the Library.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:39:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 303 Verdict

CFJ 303 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 303
  Subject: Wrangled up in Donkey Business
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: this is not a name (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: Wayne (failed to respond)
4th Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 10, 1996, 02:12h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

If, in a single round of the game of Grab-a-Donkey, both player A and
player C grab player B's donkey (A, B, and C distinct), and player B
is on the Grab-a-Donkey Active List (GAL), player B will retain their
donkey (and thus remain on the GAL).

Malenkai's Reasoning:

First of all, clause D of R 1276 will not kick in, as its "if clause" is
false in this situation.

I don't really have a strong case for TRUE here, but I do have *a* case.

R 1276, clause C:

> C. If  one player ("A") chose to Grab another player's donkey ("B"), and
> if B did not Cover eir donkey, then B will lose eir donkey and be removed
> from the GAL at the start of the following Round.

This hinges on the rendering of the word "one", and its scope.  If the word
"one" is scoped for an entire round, TRUE is indicated, otherwise FALSE
is.  In this case, 2 players attempted to grab B's donkey in a given
round, therefore, clause C never fires, thus the grabbing actions have
no effect whatsoever, because nothing else is specified in the rules to
handle this case.  Note that whether or not B covered their donkey
matters not in this reading.

Lets look at the FALSE case, and see if the judge has any comments on
this interpretation, if FALSE is returned:

If B covered their donkey, then A thru Z can grab it and nothing will
happen.  If B did not cover their donkey, then B loses it, and is removed
from the GAL next turn, the only question is, who gets the donkey?

I can see an argument for whoever grabbed it first, or whoever grabbed
it last.  I can also see an argument for *both* getting it, but that
case is weak.  My reading indicates the *last* player to grab it gets
it, in this multiple grab senerio.

This is just one of the areas that must be cleaned up in the rewrite.
There are others, I'll leave those to other players to discover (in some
cases they've been discovered), and other CFJs

Guy Fawkes's resoning:

First, I'd like to re-state the game custom that has existed since CFJ
101 and been confirmed several times since then, that in situations such
as this, the word "one" is semantically equivalent to "exactly one"
rather than "at least one."

That accomplished, the ambiguity mentioned by Malenkai still exists.
Rule 1276 fails to mention, at least in the quoted passage, whether the
"one" carries a scope of an entire round, of any instant during a round,
or even the entire game.

I hereby invoke the Spirit of the Game, similar to as was done in CFJ
240, to state that given multiple equally plausible interpretations of a
rule, even if none of the interpretations produce a paradox, an
interpretation that does not result in internal contradictions of the
rule is preferable to one that does.

That done, the scope of the entire game can be ruled out.  The rules
require that the player of a donkey grabbed exactly once (whatever that
means) be removed from the GAL at the beginning of the next round.  As it
is impossible to know whether or not the donkey shall be grabbed again at
the time the determination of whether or not it was grabbed exactly once
must be made, the whole-game scope in inconsistent with the rest of the
rules.

To determine a preference between the instant-in-time and whole-Round
cases, I direct attention to R1276, section B.

   Each Round, a player on the GAL will either (a) Cover eir donkey, (b)
   Grab a specific player's donkey on the GAL, or (c) Stand Around
   Admiring Eir Donkey.  Unless a player specifies a different choice to
   the Wrangler in a private message by the end of the Round, the player
   will Stand Around Admiring Eir Donkey.  Rounds will last no less than
   one full day (24 hours) and no more than 3 full days (72 hours) from
   the start of the game.  Players may change eir action at any time
   before the end of the Round.

The rule is very clear that a player may only take exactly one action per
turn, although that action is fluid and may be altered before the Round's
end.  The full-Round scope of "one" preserves this, while the
instant-in-time contradicts this.  Say, for example, Player A grabs
player B's donkey (B not covering), then changes his mind and decides
instead to grab player C's donkey.  Under the instant-in-time approach,
there was a time when Player A chose to Grab another player's donkey
("B") and etc., and so player B should be eliminated from the game.
However, player A also grabbed player C's donkey, which meant he made two
moves.  Thus, using the instant-in-time interpretation to prevail means
that the fluidity of moves and only having one move per turn contradict
each other.

In order to preserve both move fluidity and a one move per turn limit, it
is my interpretation that the scope of the word "one" is a Round, that
only the most recently submitted move in a Round has any game effect, and
that no move has any game effect until revealed by the Wrangler (keeping
with the game custom that game effects occur at such time that they
become publically knowable).

Therefore, this statement is TRUE.

Addendum:  In his arguments, Malenkai brings up the case of who would get
the donkey had this been FALSE.  While the statement is not FALSE, I feel
a need to clarify this.  I do not believe the rules state that anyone
ever receives a donkey except when they are originally distributed from
the Game Box.  It does state that a player may lose his donkey, in which
case he no longer owns it and it enters the Treasury as do other unowned
entities until such time as the Rules state it returned to the Game Box
(at the end of the game).  As for the scoring, R 1276 says that the Belt
Holder receives a point for each donkey he has grabbed.  I believe this
should be interpreted to mean that he receives a point for each distinct
donkey he grabbed during the course of the game -- it does not specify
that the player to whom the grabbed donkey belongs must be eliminated
from the game as a result of the grab.  Therefore, if the eventual winner
grabbed a covered donkey or took part in a multiple grab during the
course of the game, it is still a grab for scoring purposes.  However, if
he grabbed the same donkey twice, only one instance counts.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:00:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: NAP Swinger

> I am appointing Mohammed to the office of Acting NAP Swinger.  He seemed
> interested in party chess.
	Uhhhhh, okay.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:05:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

> OK - I'm confused.  Responses have been posted to the effect that the
> Brass Monkey could not climb a Gaol which consists of an infinite stack
> of constant-sized cells in a finite time.  On the other hand, there seems
> to be general agreement that an infinite number of geometrically reducing
> cells would fit in a finite area (or voume)
	I think this would work in the sense that the Monkey could cover 
infinite distance in finite time (assuming physics in the Ack universe is 
nice and Newtonian, not relativistic), but there still wouldn't be any 
- -top- to the building he's climbing, so the image isn't as satisfying (to 
me).
	I want to change the Brass Monkey rule to go off after a mere 7 
proposals, unless they were all written by the same person.  I also want 
to change the rule so that the Brass Monkey climbs the building after the 
streak -ends-, so everyone is covered; and maybe throw a parade in.  
Comments?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 21:11:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

> likely be bad for prisoner health.)  If you want to go that way, your 
> smallest possible cell would be constructed by giving the prisoner-to-be 
> a strong-force attraction to the other nucleons, giving them asympodic 
> (sp?) freedom within the PE boundary of the nucleus, yet forbidding them 
> to exist outside it, effectively creating a Gaol cell the size of an 
> atomic nucleus.  This brings up the interesting idea of a jailbreak by means 
> of quantum tunneling.
	You can't tunnel yourself to a higher energy state; you have to 
get the energy from somewhere.  I'm not clear on this either, though....

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 22:15:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Grab-a-Donkey

Grab-a-Donkey R 1 results:

1) In addition to CFJ 303, some additional bugs to follow were found in
the first round of Grab-a-Donkey.  CFJ 243 established the legitimacy
of officers interpreting unclear situations, and I will attempt to do
so in these cases without resort to CFJ, having accomplished what I
needed to in CFJ 303, and another CFJ I'm about to call.  

2) I will call the second round in a couple of days, to give anyone a 
chance to call a CFJ on this, if they wish.

3) The synopsis of the first round is:
    fnord and breadbox are eliminated by Bascule and mr cwm respectively
    Robin Hood quit and is eliminated
    everyone else remains on the GAL, which will be updated and
        published at the start of the second round.

4) BUGS so far:

BUG1: multiple grabs, resolved by CFJ 303

BUG2: no contingincy in the rules for a player quitting Ackanomic.  
      Robin Hood quit, without taking action, and without being acted
      against.  Common sense indicates he should be removed from the
      GAL, and that is my interpretation, although I can see the grounds
      for challenging this.

BUG3: Player B grabbed player B's donkey (fnord = player B).  I 
      specifically worded CFJ 303 to *not* apply here, as I
      believe the results are different if player A grabs player B's
      donkey in this case.  This did happen (Bascule = player A).
      I read then, that the if clause of R 1276, section C, is thus
      true, therefore the then clause fires, and fnord is removed.
      This should be clarified in the rewrite, however.

BUG4: A player thought they should be able to decline participation in
      the game as an option, and I agree.  This should be added as
      option (d), resign, in the rewrite.

BUG5: I disagree with the judge of CFJ 303 in the reasoning that every
      *attempted* grab should count towards scoring.  It seems to me
      that onlg grabs that *eliminate* should count.  I can see the
      judge's point however, and can see it go that way as well.  I 
      will submit a CFJ to clarify this.  The game will not hang on
      this CFJ, unless people are planning strategy based on end-game
      scoring ;).  It should be clarified in any case.
  
5) Grab-a-Donkey GAL at the start of round 1, and moves/results:
- -------------------------------------------------
Bascule (Matt Black) [[email-masked]]
    Move: Grabbed fnord's donkey
    Result: successful
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL + 1 grab

breadbox (Brian Raiter) [[email-masked]]
    Move: admired his donkey
    Result: none
    Actions against: mr cwm grabbed his donkey
    Final Results: removed from GAL

Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain) [[email-masked]]
    Move: admired his donkey
    Result: none
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis) [[email-masked]]
    Move: covered his donkey
    Result: successful
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

fnord (Michael J. Thomas) [[email-masked]]
    Move: grabbed fnord's donkey
    Result: no effect
    Actions against: Bascule grabbed his donkey
    Final Results: removed from GAL

Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin) [[email-masked]]
    Move: covered his donkey
    Result: successful
    Actions against: Mohammed grabbed his donkey
    Final Results: remains on GAL

Habeous Corpus (Ed Graham) [[email-masked]]
    Move: grabbed snowgod's donkey
    Result: unsuccessful (2 or more grabs)
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

IdiotBoy (Matt Miller) [[email-masked]]
    Move: covered his donkey
    Result: successful
    Actions against: ThinMan grabbed his donkey
    Final Results: remains on GAL

Mohammed (Jason Orendorff) [[email-masked]]
    Move: grabbed Guy Fawkes's donkey
    Result: unsuccessful
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

mr cwm (Eric Murray) [[email-masked]]
    Move: grabbed breadbox's donkey
    Result: successful
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL + 1 grab credited

Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck) [[email-masked]]
    Move: admired his donkey
    Result: none
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

Robin Hood (Robert Shaw) [[email-masked]]
    Move: admired his donkey
    Result: none
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: left the game, removed from GAL

snowgod (Phil Ackley) [[email-masked]]
    Move: covered his donkey
    Result: successful
    Actions against: Techno and Habeous Corpus Grabbed 
    Final Results: remains on GAL

Techno (Jerome Herrman) [[email-masked]]
    Move: grabbed snowgod's donkey
    Result: unsuccessful (2 or more grabs)
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

ThinMan (John Bollinger) [[email-masked]]
    Move: grabbed IdiotBoy's donkey
    Result: unsuccessful (IdiotBoy covered)
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

this is not a name (Mike Epstein) [[email-masked]]
    Move: admired his donkey
    Result: none
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

Wayne (Wayne Sheppard) [[email-masked]]
    Move: admired his donkey
    Result: none
    Actions against: none
    Final Results: remains on GAL

Malenkai
Wrangler

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #286
*******************************