Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #288
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, October 11 1996       Volume 01 : Number 288

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:40:50 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 305 (Uncle Sam)

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uncle Sam has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 305
>   Subject: Another PartyChess Paradox
> Initiator: Mohammed
>     Judge: Uncle Sam (selected Oct 11, 1996, 00:41h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It is impossible to determine with finality whether, in PartyChess, the
> use of a CopyCat to capture an enemy CopyCat is legal.
> 
> Mohammed's Reasoning:
> 
>         Rule 1085 has this to say on the matter.  "A CopyCat captures a
> piece only according to the rules by which the captured piece can
> capture."  This is a problem of infinite mirrors.
>         I am claiming a Paradox Win in accordance with R219, on a
> judgement of True.
> 

Aha!  A landmark in paradox win CFJ's.  Clear, concise, and to the 
point.  I was thinking of submitting this one myself, actually, but I was 
getting so sick of Chess Law that I figured "Ah hell, i'll skip it".  And 
then I forgot all about the problem.  Oh, woe is me :)

snowgod
who will likely own the ccharturse goose before winning the game

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 06:27:49 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: CFJ 304

I accept CFJ 304 and will return judgement very soon.

I probably should have declined this,  as I am biased to the intent of
R1276.  But I have decided to put away my _intentions_ and take a long
look at Malenkai's argument.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 03:01:34 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Forheads

A few players have not yet claimed their special campaign forheads.  I 
realize that some of these players are on vacation, and cannot claim the 
right now, but some aren't and can.

I'd just like to remind everyone that hasn't yet claimed a forehead to do 
so soon.  Who knows what I may decide to do with them later.  And oh 
yeah, well I'mm at it, let me remind you to vote for snowgod, the only 
candidate who will hapily spend his hard earned money to amuse you, the 
voter.

snowgod
who just bought the new TMBG album!!!

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:39:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 305 (Uncle Sam)

There very well may be a paradox here, but consider this possibility:
it is very clear that it is legal to use a CopyCat to capture an enemy 
CopyCat, but it is impossible to determine exactly how that might be done.

Guy Fawkes

> Statement:
> 
> It is impossible to determine with finality whether, in PartyChess, the
> use of a CopyCat to capture an enemy CopyCat is legal.
> 
> Mohammed's Reasoning:
> 
>         Rule 1085 has this to say on the matter.  "A CopyCat captures a
> piece only according to the rules by which the captured piece can
> capture."  This is a problem of infinite mirrors.
>         I am claiming a Paradox Win in accordance with R219, on a
> judgement of True.

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:57:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  protoproposal

This isn't complete; there are more changes I could make to the rule
set... But I figure get it started and someone else will take care of the
details (I don't want to.)

PROTOPROPOSAL 1001011

[The presence of "must" in the rule set is overdone.
Often Rules use "must" to talk about something that the
Rules really can't control, like "Player X must then send
a message stating blah blah blah."

This Proposal transforms a lot of musts into Duties, and
turns failure to obey a must into a Crime.  It's a small
step toward cleaning up a very musty Rule set.

I like Crimes anyway; I feel better saying someone's
committed a Crime than saying he's broken the rules.
]

1. Rule 710 ("Criminal Justice") is amended by changing
the section which reads:
- ---
    3) Its "statement" shall be "X has broken the Rules", where X is
    replaced with the name of a registered player.
- ---
to
- ---
    3) Its "statement" shall be "X has committed a Crime", where X is
    replaced with the name of a registered player.
- ---

2.  A new rule is created, titled "Crime", reading:
- ---
To break the Rules is a Crime, a Felony.

To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime.  
However, an action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by 
contrast, impossible. An attempt to commit such an action is simply 
ignored. 

Failure of an Officer to perform a Duty of an Office e holds is a 
Crime.  The act of performing a Duty incorrectly is Malpractice, which 
is also a Crime.
- ---

3.  Rule 362 ("No Dead Players Allowed") is amended to read, in full:
- ---
If any player who is not currently on a voluntarily activated vacation 
does not vote or communicate publicly with all of the Ackanomic players 
for a time period of one week, and this fact is pointed out to the 
Registrar by any player, then the Registrar has a Duty to send a message 
to the player who has been absent.  In this message the Registrar has a 
Duty to ask the player if e wishes to continue playing the game, and to 
point out why the message is being sent. If the player does not reply 
within two days, then e is placed on vacation with an expected duration 
of zero days.
- ---

[ This merely changes Speaker to Registar, which makes more sense
  imho, and softens "must" to "has the Duty of". ]

4. Rule 414 ("The Office of the Tabulator") is amended by
replacing
- ---
(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of each proposal.
    Proposal results must be reported in the time order in
    which their voting periods ended.
- ---
with
- ---
(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of proposals, in
    the time order in which their voting periods ended.
- ---

5.  Rule 569 ("Overturning Judgements") is amended by replacing
- ---
The Supreme Court must then decide the case and return its
verdict within one week.
- ---
with
- ---
The Supreme Court shall then decide the case, and should
return its verdict within one week.
- ---

[The reason I make this change is because that rule specifies
what should happen if the Supreme Court fails to decide the
case.  I wouldn't want the Court to be convicted by CFCJ of
breaking the rules, on top of those penalties.  (In fact I'm
sort of surprised it hasn't come up yet.  Did I miss
something?)]

6.  Rule 726 ("Party Hall") is amended by replacing
- ---
If the Speaker is a Party member, and no player has been
assigned the role of acting NAP Swinger, and there is at least
one volunteer from among the non-aligned players for that
position, then the Speaker must appoint one of the volunteers
as acting NAP Swinger. 
- ---
with
- ---
If the Speaker is a Party member, and no player has been
assigned the role of acting NAP Swinger, and there is at least
one volunteer from among the non-aligned players for that
position, then the Speaker has the Duty of appointing one of
the volunteers as acting NAP Swinger.
- ---

7.  Rule 775 ("Church") is amended by replacing
- ---
c.All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as
they are members of the Church.
- ---
with
- ---
c.  A Player who disobeys the Church Policy of a Church of
which he or she is a member is guilty of Heresy, which is a
Crime.  No Player may take a game action which constitutes
Heresy if he or she has any legal alternative which would not
constitute Heresy.  [That is, Heresy normally doesn't happen
unless there is no alternative.  It is possible for a player
to commit Heresy by inaction, though.]
- ---

and by replacing
- ---
The Church must respond within 4 days with an explanation
it finds suitable.  A Church may provide such an explanation
even if no request was made.
- ---
with
- ---
Members of the Church may respond to this however they like, and any such 
response has the official Ackanomic Seal of Politeness, regardless of how 
brain-stoppingly offensive it is.
- ---

and by replacing
- ---
7. a.  When a player wishes to join a Church, e may
communicate this fact to the Church Founder either publically
or privately.

b. If Church Policy has nothing to say on accepting new
members, then Church membership will be up to the Founder.

c. Whenever a new player joins a Church, the Church Founder
must make a public announcement to that effect. 

d. A player may leave a Church at any time. 
- ---
with
- ---
7. a.  Any player may petition the Founder of a Church for
membership in that Church.

b. If Church Policy has nothing to say on accepting new
members, then Church membership will be up to the Founder.
However, a Player cannot become a member of a Church until
the Founder of the Church sends a public announcement to
that effect.

c.  A player may leave a Church at any time.
- ---

and by replacing
- ---
8. a. A Church must always have at least one Priest. 

b. A Church must always have at least at four members,
including Priests.
- ---
with
- ---
8. a.  If a Church ever has no Priests or (Heaven forbid) has
fewer than zero Priests, that Church is disbanded.  That is,
it no longer exists as a Church.

b.  If a Church ever has fewer than four members, it is
disbanded.
- ---

8.  Rule 779 ("Succession Proceedings") is amended by replacing
- ---
3) Upon SPS being invoked, one of the players invoking them
   must send a message to the current Speaker stating what is
   going on, with the subject line "Ackanomic: Official: SPS".
   If the current Speaker responds to the message in the public
   forum within 3 days, SPS is immediately terminated.
- ---
with
- ---
3) If no one sends a message to the current Speaker within
   a day of SPS being invoked, stating what is going on,
   with the subject line "Ackanomic: Official: SPS",
   SPS are immediately terminated.  If the current Speaker
   responds to the message in the public forum within 3 days,
   SPS is immediately terminated.
- ---

9.  Rule 797 ("Festival of Torkola") is amended by replacing
- ---
The Promoter is strongly encouraged, but not required, to
do this.  He or she must consider the state of the game and
popular opinion when making this decision.
- ---
with
- ---
The Promoter is strongly encouraged, but not required, to do
this, taking into consideration the state of the game and
popular opinion.
- ---

10.  Rule 818 ("Prosthetic Foreheads") is amended by replacing
- ---
A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they own, but e
may wear only one Prosthetic Forehead at a time. A player
must announce publicly whenever it starts or stops wearing a
Prosthetic Forehead, and must also announce what type of
Prosthetic Forehead is involved.
- ---
with
- ---
A Player who is not already wearing a Prosthetic Forehead
may wear any one e owns by announcing publicly that e is
doing so and what type of Prosthetic Forehead is involved.
A Player who is wearing a Prosthetic Forehead may remove it
by announcing the action publicly. 
- ---

11.  Rule 832 ("Postmaster") is amended by replacing
- ---
All players, except those who are vacationing, must be
subscribed to the official mailing list at all times.
- ---
with
- ---
For a Player who is not on vacation to unsubscribe
from the official mailing list is a Crime.
- ---

12.  Rule 892 ("Journalistic Integrity") is amended by replacing
- ---
If a newspaper publishes an article containing any statement that
another player considers to be untrue, that player may ask for a
correction to be published in the same newspaper. The player must
voice her objection publically within a week of the article being
published.

If a correction is not published by the newspaper within a week of
the complaint being made, or if the complainant is not satisfied
with the correction, then she may make a Call for Criminal Judgement
against the owner of the offending newspaper.
- ---
with
- ---
It is a Crime for a Player to refuse to publish, in a newspaper he or she 
owns, a correction of an untrue statement that previously appeared in 
that newspaper, after a public request for such a correction has been 
made.  Simply neglecting to publish such a correction for a period of 
three days or more after the request shall be taken as refusal to do so.
- ---

13.  Rule 924 ("Required Reading") is amended by removing section f).

[f) The Web-Harfer may publically request that the Speaker 
help him or her in his or her attempt to comply with
clause a) and b). If such a request is made, the Speaker
must make a bona-fide effort to help the Web-Harfer.]

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 08:03:18 -0600
From: Uncle Sam <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 305 (Uncle Sam) 

>Uncle Sam has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

>Call For Judgement 305
>  Subject: Another PartyChess Paradox
>Initiator: Mohammed

I accept the calling to Judge.  Expect my verdict in one week.

Uncle Sam

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:23:24 -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.
>>>

I've thought about the fractal perimeter gaol over night, which is about
long enough for me to decide to expose my ignorance.  Are the cells
2-dimensional areas bounded by the perimeter, or are they 1-dimensional
segments along the perimeter?  Granting the aesthetic advantage of the
fractal gaol, if 2-D do the cells have another advantage over the
geometric series gaol, or if 1-D do the cells have another advantage over
a rectangular gaol where the cells are line segments with the height of
the rectangle all laid side by side?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:30:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 305 (Uncle Sam)

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> There very well may be a paradox here, but consider this possibility:
> it is very clear that it is legal to use a CopyCat to capture an enemy 
> CopyCat, but it is impossible to determine exactly how that might be done.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

To me think it seems very clear that a CopyCat cannot capture another
CaopyCat. Even if we accept Mohammed's hall-of-mirrors argument, due to
the perfect reletivity of those mirrors, it can be determined with
finality, that nowhere in that infinite sequence can be a legal Capture
move by which one CopyCat can capture another.

I ask the Judge to consider that point.

There are instances in mathematics that it is known that there exists an
entity with certain properties, but one can't determine what it is.
It can be proven that there is no greatest prime, but we can't determine
what the next greatest prime is.

Disregarding done, I have submitted a Modest proposal that explicitly
disallows one CopyCat to Capture another.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:33:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  protoproposal

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Mohammed wrote:

>5.  Rule 569 ("Overturning Judgements") is amended by replacing
>---
>The Supreme Court must then decide the case and return its
>verdict within one week.
>---
>with
>---
>The Supreme Court shall then decide the case, and should
>return its verdict within one week.
>---
>
>[The reason I make this change is because that rule specifies
>what should happen if the Supreme Court fails to decide the
>case.  I wouldn't want the Court to be convicted by CFCJ of
>breaking the rules, on top of those penalties.  (In fact I'm
>sort of surprised it hasn't come up yet.  Did I miss
>something?)]

I think we sort of dealt with this with this is not a name's violation of
the old public messages rule, now "Customary Subject Line Lengths," which
used to specify a penalty for not including "Ackanomic" or "Acka" in the
subject line.  I can't reference the CFCJ right now, but I think it
essentially came down to a ruling that rules that specify their own
penalties for breaking them cannot really be broken.  The rule really just
specifies two options, one of which may be less pleasant in some ways than
the other. (Someone should probably look this up.  The above was my
unofficial public argument, and I think the decision was along those
lines.) 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: President, etc.

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Mohammed wrote in reference to gaolbreaks
by quantum tunneling:

>	I defer to you on this; I dunno.  *crooked grin*  I guess, then, 
>atoms normally stick together because the nucleons are too massive to 
>tunnel?  Otherwise it would seem a nucleus would naturally blast itself into
>its constituent particles.
>

(In one dimension) the probablility of a successful gaolbreak falls
exponentially with the (square root of the) amount of energy that has to
be "borrowed."  In small cells, the range and strength of the strong force
is such that the large amount of energy that has to be borrowed makes the
probability of a successful gaolbreak vanishingly small.  On the other
hand, gaolbreaks are rather common from large cells where the strong force
is weakened by distance and thus the amount of energy that must be
borrowed is less.  In fact, they're pretty much guarenteed once the cell
reaches a certain size.

- -mr cwm
 who is beginning to think that an RFC on gaolbreaks by quantum tunneling
 might be in order

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:28:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 305 (Uncle Sam)

> There are instances in mathematics that it is known that there exists an
> entity with certain properties, but one can't determine what it is.
> It can be proven that there is no greatest prime, but we can't determine
> what the next greatest prime is.
	That's no parallel.  In fact, it doesn't make sense; the fact 
that there is no greatest prime implies that there is no next-greatest 
prime.
	An example of what you're talking about might be:  according to
Godel's theory, there exists a true but nonprovable statement within any
sufficiently robust, formal mathematical framework.  However, actually
finding such a statement is not something Godel's theory covers, and even
if you did find one, trying to prove that it was indeed true but
nonprovable would be an exercise in ridiculum. 

...This problem actually turns out to be highly Godelian.  Malenkai, you 
might like this.

The method proscribed by the Rule for determining whether a 
CopyCat can capture another piece is (paraphrased):

	0:  A CopyCat can capture another piece if, and only if, it is 
true that the other piece could capture the CopyCat, were their positions 
reversed.
	What if it is true, but -not provable-, that the other piece could
capture the CopyCat?  True, but indeterminate?  Or what if it's false, but
there is no way we could ever actually find out?  I would say either of 
those would constitute a Paradox Win.  And I think that's exactly the 
case here.

	1:  A CopyCat can capture another piece if, and only if, it is
true and provable (without infinite recursion) that the other piece could
capture the CopyCat, were their positions reversed.
	If we go by this method instead, then apparently a CopyCat can't
capture another CopyCat.  But this is not what the Rule says.  The
"provable" part is only in our minds. 

	2:  A CopyCat can capture any other piece, unless it is false and 
provably false (without infinite recursion) that the other piece could 
capture the CopyCat, were their positions reversed.
	If we go by this method, then it would appear that a CopyCat -can-
capture another CopyCat (regardless of the pieces' positions on the
board)!  What makes 1 better than 2?  Nothing.

	Both 1 and 2 are perfect approximations of 0, for all -other- 
cases except the case in which one CopyCat tries to capture another.  In 
that case, they produce opposite answers, while 0 itself produces no 
answer at all.
	I encourage the judge to see that Mr. Flychuck's argument, that 
method 1 must be used, neglects the simple facts that (a) 1 is not given 
by the rules, only 0; and (b) 1 isn't any better than 2, which would 
produce the opposite result.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  protoproposal

Kind of tangential to Mohammed's protoproposal:

I like the idea that Crimes are defined as opposed to just breaking the
rules.  The way the rules work now CFJ 301 *may* be judged FALSE, despite
the ruling on CFCJ 115.  ALl that CFCJ 115 says is that I broke the rules
and was sentenced to 4 days in Gaol.  Everything else in that decision is
not considered part of the judgement or game custom.  The finding hinged on
the fact that my Hot Tips Newsletter is considered a newspaper.  But I was
not convicted of the crime of "Unauthorized Press", I merely broke the
rules, in some way.  Perhaps I am overblowing the distinction, but it makes
sense to seperate rules breakers into criminal groups.  

Also, defining Crimes allows us to "play within the rules" at all times,
even if the action we take is considered Criminal.

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:39:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential Debate

I have been asked to moderate a presidential debate.  My ISP was down
last night, so I am just getting this.  The candidates asked me to do
this on short notice anyway, so... next time it will be more organzied,
I suppose (perhaps a rule ?)

I'm not really doing anything except composing an e-mail message.
The rules below, and the questions, have all been submitted by the
candidates.  I have randomized the order of the questions.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules:
 
Limits on replies:
a maximum of 15 lines unqouted text
a maximum of 10 lines quoted text

a maximum of 20 lines total per message.
These apply on a per question basis.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions:

1) Why do you want to be president and what encouraged you to run for
president in the first place? (Okay, so that's really two questions)

2). We often question candidates about their beliefs as to the shape of the
earth. What do you believe to be the size of the earth?

3) How do you feel about Ackanomic's apperant obsession with headware?

4). There is a proposal on the queue no to merge the Appointer's role with
the President's. Do you feel that the President should have a larger role
in Ackanomic, and should such a larger role be expressed mainly in terms
of Duties or privileges?

5) What attributes do you feel are most important in a leader?

6). One of the most recent controversies in Ackanomic was the UnderWorld
strike. Do you think that this a "terrorist act" as some players said, a
legitimate use of the rules, as UW claimed, or perhaps you have another
opinion? What measures, if any, shoulc Ackanomic take to prevent something
similar from happening in the future?

7) Would you compose a sample proposal containing the following sentence
"Deep In the rain forest it was doing what it usually does in rain
forests, which was raining: hence the name." and explain how that
proposal would benefit all the people of Acklanomic.  (feel free to
replace this sentence with any other that is substantially sillier if you
are worried that i am stacking the deck with this question)

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, none of these questions are my work.

Good luck to all the candidates.

Malenkai
moderating a debate

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:11:52 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [none]

This message is automatically generated.

The header of a mail message being sent to you was damaged during transit, 
so could not be delivered normally.  The full message is included below.

Please ensure that addresses for replies to the email are entered manually, 
as use of any reply option will send the reply to the wrong destination.

If the message was destined for a list it is likely that some members
of the list will have already received the message, so duplication may
ocurr.  

We apologise for the delay in delivery and any inconvenience caused.
Please direct enquiries concerning this problem to

    [email-masked]

Chris Bayliss
Information Services
The University of Birmingham

Original message follows
==========================================================================

Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: President
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 09:28:43 -0500

I wrote:

>I vote for 
>>
>>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>for president.

Oops.  Too quick on the reply, there.  Oh well, it was going
to be made public eventually, anyway.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 12:32:25 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Relativity

CnH wrote:

>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 forgets that the second law of thermodynamics is not
binding on Ackanomic entities, as it is not in the Rule set.
Destroying a R115 entity can _always_ be done in Acka,
under the Rules in their present form.

This does not, however,  prevent CnH from changing the 2nd law
(in Acka) as he specified.

>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.
>
Prisoners will be disappointed, I'm afraid.  It seems that every
copy of the book spontaneously reverted to logs, ink, and live
cows (it seems the books were leather-bound).  Some additional
matter was required, but it was generated by spontaneous energy
to matter conversion of most of the heat in the gaol walls.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 22:43:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 305 (Uncle Sam)

Just to clear this up. The Godelian example is apt. 
About primes - there exists a greatest known prime, yet, despite the fact
that it is proved that there is no greatest prime, which means that the
greatest known prime is not _the_ greatest prime, we have no method of
determining what it the smallest prime which is greater than the greatest
known prime.

> 
> 	0:  A CopyCat can capture another piece if, and only if, it is 
> true that the other piece could capture the CopyCat, were their positions 
> reversed.
> 	What if it is true, but -not provable-, that the other piece could
> capture the CopyCat?  True, but indeterminate?  Or what if it's false, but
> there is no way we could ever actually find out?  I would say either of 
> those would constitute a Paradox Win.  And I think that's exactly the 
> case here.
> 
> 	1:  A CopyCat can capture another piece if, and only if, it is
> true and provable (without infinite recursion) that the other piece could
> capture the CopyCat, were their positions reversed.
> 	If we go by this method instead, then apparently a CopyCat can't
> capture another CopyCat.  But this is not whatthe Rule says.  The
> "provable" part is only in our minds. 
> 
> 	2:  A CopyCat can capture any other piece, unless it is false and 
> provably false (without infinite recursion) that the other piece could 
> capture the CopyCat, were their positions reversed.
> 	If we go by this method, then it would appear that a CopyCat -can-
> capture another CopyCat (regardless of the pieces' positions on the
> board)!  What makes 1 better than 2?  Nothing.

The no infinite recursion condition does not exist in the rule and
therefore should not be excluded. Just as Mathematics deals witht he
infinite, so can we. It is sufficient to show that the infinite recursion
is indeed infinite, we have already shown that calculating such a
regression can take finite time, so we need not worry about holding up the
game forever, and since the recursion is indeed infinite, it never reaches
a conclusion that defines a method by which one CopyCat may Capture
another. The method is specifically not the Move method, since that only
holds for Captures if no other method for Captures is defined.

 > 
> 	Both 1 and 2 are perfect approximations of 0, for all -other- 
> cases except the case in which one CopyCat tries to capture another.  In 
> that case, they produce opposite answers, while 0 itself produces no 
> answer at all.
> 	I encourage the judge to see that Mr. Flychuck's argument, that 
> method 1 must be used, neglects the simple facts that (a) 1 is not given 
> by the rules, only 0; and (b) 1 isn't any better than 2, which would 
> produce the opposite result.
The rules explicitly specify that a method of Capture must be described,
therefore 1 is better than 2.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:51:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Debate - Niccolo Flychuck

Niccolo Flychuck, Presidential candidate:

Questions & Answers

1) Why do you want to be president and what encouraged you to run for
president in the first place? (Okay, so that's really two questions)

Ever since I joined Ackanomic I strived to take part in a creation of
a framework of growth. I believe that such a framework is an integral 
part of this experimental social interaction of which we are all a 
part. At first, many of my ideas were treated with suspicion. When the
previous Elections were anounced I felt that I was no longer at the 
fringe of Ackanomic, yet still generated the occasional controversy.
This is the kind of balance I like. I felt that I could contribute
more to Ackanomic in a public role such as the President's role.
One of my goals was to study that role up-close and see how it could
better integrated into the Ackanomic framework, and failing that, 
studying the necessity of that role in Ackanomic. 

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
2). We often question candidates about their beliefs as to the shape of the
earth. What do you believe to be the size of the earth?

Ackanomic grows with its players. While the number of players at any 
given time, has been a little over 20, I believe, if you count all the
names in the players' archive, you will see that the total number
of players that have taken part in this our Nomic, is much larger.
Ackanomic grows and keeps on growing and changing - if there is 
a finite earth that can contain such Infinite Diversity in Infinite
Combinations, then our earth is a wonderous place indeed. Ackanomic
is limited only by the imaginative creative minds of the players. 
I daresay that we lack nothing in creativity.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) How do you feel about Ackanomic's apperant obsession with headware?

Well <adjusting the Prosthetic Forehead I received from snowgod, not 
neglecting to point out the sticker on my that says:"Pay no attention to my
Prosthetic Forehead - Niccolo Flychuck for President">
Headware ( or headwear) was significant in various cultures. Kings'
crowns, as symbols ofauthority, are one example. Priests wearing headwear, 
and masks, that serve as symbols  of the gods whose power they represent.
OTOH, Orthodox Jews keep their heads covered in a more modest, yet significant
manner.
Obsession with Headwear is a human obsession. Our heads and faces are the
things we are most often recognized by. The relevance to the medium which
we use as chief aid in Ackanomic, the web, is that when we want to display
ourselves on the web, we will most often display our face, or more
accurately, a front view of our heads. Headwear will be much more visible 
than any other kind of wear.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
4). There is a proposal on the queue no to merge the Appointer's role with
the President's. Do you feel that the President should have a larger role
in Ackanomic, and should such a larger role be expressed mainly in terms
of Duties or privileges?

I believe that the President is first and foremost a public servant and 
that eir role should not be defined in terms of power, but in terms of duties.
Privileges, such as pardoning prisoners, are an important part of the 
system, and it should certainly be made possible to allow other 
privileges, as long as those privileges do not serve to abuse the system.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
5) What attributes do you feel are most important in a leader?

A leader should be able to identify trends of both long and short
processes. E should be able to face such trends, surf the favorable ones,
ride out the destructive ones, accomodate to new situation, without losing
sight of eir goals. A leader should be respected by eir peers, whether 
they are allies, or opponents.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
6). One of the most recent controversies in Ackanomic was the UnderWorld
strike. Do you think that this a "terrorist act" as some players said, a
legitimate use of the rules, as UW claimed, or perhaps you have another
opinion? What measures, if any, shoulc Ackanomic take to prevent something
similar from happening in the future?

The UW strike may not have started as a terrorist act, and may not have
been intended as such, but once it was made clear by non-UW players that
they felt it was distasteful, it became a terrorist act. I believe that 
the solidarity that OW showed at that time, demonstrated that despite
the controversies, when the game we all love was threatened, we overcame
our differences, and united against the threat. The main theme of this union, 
was not 'beating the UW', but rather trying to restore the peace.
Future historians may not, that there was in fact a counter-strike.
Once the strike was anounce, other than Malenkai's controversial proposal,
no proposal were submitted by non-UW members, and all of their proposals 
were voted down (the other proposals that suffered the strike were already 
on the queue). The strike was a breach ofthe social convention under which we 
leave. It is the same social convention by which we trust our various Officers
to carry out eir jobs honestly. Throwing away that social convention 
undermines the very basis on which  Ackanomic exists.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Would you compose a sample proposal containing the following sentence
"Deep In the rain forest it was doing what it usually does in rain
forests, which was raining: hence the name." and explain how that
proposal would benefit all the people of Acklanomic.  (feel free to
replace this sentence with any other that is substantially sillier if you
are worried that i am stacking the deck with this question)

"Deep in the rain forest it was doing what it usually does in rain forests,
which was raining: hence the name. Had it not been doing so, it might have 
become too dry for the phylohydric plants, and they would have become 
endangered species, in which case it would have been up to the 
entire population of Ackanomic to seat moping and crying for a whole
week in order to produce enought tears to replenish the fluids. In
order to enhance the tears, whenever such a terrible thing occurs, the 
President creates a Great Onion, and all the non-vacationing players
carve it up together, thus producing the necessary fluid."
First, I would like to thank the candidate who wrote this question for 
bringing to our attention this most important envirnmental issue. The rain-
forest problem is a grave one, and if we allow them to dwindle, who knows 
where Ackanomic might end up. This proposal addresses this environmental
problem, it encourages the citizens of Ackanomic to take responsibility
for eir environment, while at the same time working together as one.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Peace

Niccolo Flychuck
Presidential Candidate

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

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:13:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Presidential debate URL

I placed both the question and the answers that have already been posted
(that is, mine). When the other candidates post their replies, I shall add
them to the web page as well.

http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/acka/debate.html

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 18:40:29 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forheads 

At 03:01 AM 11-10-96 -0800, Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
>A few players have not yet claimed their special campaign forheads.  I 
>realize that some of these players are on vacation, and cannot claim the 
>right now, but some aren't and can.

I'll claim mine, thanks... but before I do I want to know if you can pass
the test of moral courage. Actually, I'd like to know if there are any
candidates who would be willing to pass the test. See below.

>I'd just like to remind everyone that hasn't yet claimed a forehead to do 
>so soon.  Who knows what I may decide to do with them later.  And oh 
>yeah, well I'mm at it, let me remind you to vote for snowgod, the only 
>candidate who will hapily spend his hard earned money to amuse you, the 
>voter.

Now don't get me wrong, it was a nice thought, and even a nice forehead.
However... I do not believe the earth is flat. (yes, "he" is actually saying
that and how could he do this to us good flatearthers who have only burned
him twice before and by golly he'll learn his lesson this time bla bla bla...)

And since you brought that subject up, snowgod, I'm wondering if you would
be willing to get it re-engraved to say: "the earth's shape is closer to
round than to flat" instead.

Any other candidate willing to test their moral fiber? Are you for religious
persecution or scientific knowledge? In a time when we are finding out so
much of physics has to be investigated here in Acka, will our leaders
support the results or suppress them?   ;)

Calvin "burn me" Hobbes
who has forgotten his slippers in AckAfterlife and needs to go get them

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #288
*******************************