Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #303
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, October 19 1996      Volume 01 : Number 303

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 19:48:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Purple Robe of Justice

Bollinger, John C. wrote:

[re the purple robe auction]

> You are within your R115 rights to not disclose the
> information, but I don't know why you would want to
> conceal it.

Because I'm lazy :)

> Besides, I would like to know whether I overpaid.

Public opinion has established game custom that private auction results
are released.  I would have ruled that way as a judge, given that
witchhunt voting records, etc, are released.

ThinMan: A$107
breadbox: A$100
/dev/joe: A$54 (guess, was in the 50s)
mr cwm: A$29
snowgod: A$23

Malenkai
Chief Cheese

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 19:56:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

Guy Fawkes wrote:
 
> While carefully scrutinizing my recently acquired Electronic Potato,

Please track your electronic potato receipts and e-mail me and
ThinMan with them when they occur.  This is one of the more difficult
things for the Financier to remember to track.

Malenkai
who should have fudged the random roll to a propeller beanie

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 20:41:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 301 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 301 has been overturned to TRUE.

Oct 18 20:41 EDT: -1 breadbox: CFJ 301 overturned

The justices are penalized A$2 each for tardyness.

Clerk of the Courts
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 301
  Subject: Newspaper selling
Initiator: IdiotBoy
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 30, 1996, 15:40h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE
   Appeal: TRUE

Statement:

It is not possible for a player to sell a newspaper, without permission,
which is not published by his own newspaper.

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

R891 regulates the production of newspapers.  The third paragraph states
that:

News articles may be posted by the owner of a newspaper, quoting the name of
the newspaper in the article.  Such an article is said to have been
published in that newspaper.

Given the result of CFCJ 115, "posting" must be taken to include sending out
a newspaper by means of private email.   If it were not so, IdiotBoy would
have been found innocent, for he never posted a newspaper article to the
public forum, preferring to distrubte by means of subscription.

R891, paragraph 4 states:

No player may publish articles in a paper she does not own without the
express permission of the owner.

This may be taken to mean that the recipient of a newspaper does not have
the right to redistribute a newspaper which she receives, by any means.
The mere act of posting (sending via email) a copy of a newspaper is
considered publishing.  Resending another's newpaper is publishing that
newspaper.  A clear violation of the rules, if express permission is not
given.

breadbox's Reasoning:

When taken in context, it is clear that the intention of paragraph 4
in Rule 891 was to prevent citizens from misrepresenting a newspaper
by posting articles that falsely claimed to be printed in a paper that
they did not own. The question before the court is then whether this
can be construed to prohibit duplication, in any form, of a newspaper
or articles that appeared in it.

I do not believe that to be the case. Specifically, I claim that a
private message shared between two parties, as opposed to a message
submitted to a public forum, cannot be considered an act of
publishing. The fact that one party may be paid for sending such a
message is not germane.

This judge does not feel that Ackanomia has any business in
restricting the private activies of its citizens.

I must note that by this logic, Idiotboy's "Hot Tips Newsletter" is a
private activity (albeit advertised in a most public fashion), and
should be not considered to be a newspaper.

IdiotBoy's Appeal Reasoning:
 
I wish to appeal this on the basis that the Hot Tips Newsletter has
already been deemed a newspaper.  (CFCJ 115)  (Although I like the
judicial activism on breadbox's part.)

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

News articles are protected entities. The act of mailing a news article is
also an act of publishing it, as established by CFCJ 115.  Publishing a
news article is not permitted without the express permission of the owner.
Additionally, news articles are not tradeable.

Penalty for the original judge: 1 point

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 20:51:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 116 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has been selected to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment.

Would the Financier please note mr cwm's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 116
  Subject:  Illegal Publishing
Initiator:  mr cwm
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Oct 18, 1996, 20:50 EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Guy Fawkes has broken the rules.

mr cwm's Reasoning:

Guy Fawkes posted the following message:

"Any holder of a Chartreuse Goose Egg is hereby invited to submit a bid to
take this fowl most foul off my hands.  Name your price; the lowest bid
shall win.

Guy Fawkes"

R891 states that "News articles may only be posted by the owner of a
newspaper, quoting the name of the newspaper in the article.  Such an
article is said to have been published in that paper.  No player may
publish articles in a paper she does not own without the express
permission of the publisher."

The posted message quotes the name of a newspaper, is, prominently in the
center of the first line.  The posted article contains news, that is, it
contains information previously unknown, but possibly of interest, to
Ackanomians.  By quoting the name of a newspaper, this news article is
said (by R891) to have been published in that paper.  However, Guy Fawkes
is neither the owner of that paper, nor does he have the explicit
permission of that paper's publisher, mr cwm, to publish in it.  Guy
Fawkes has violated R891.

(Note that "news article" is either defined by R891 to be a message such
as this, quoting the name of a newspaper, or it is undefined, in which
case common English usage would indicate that this message containing news
is a "news article.")

Suggested penalties:

Transfer of entities: A$24 to mr cwm (A$4 in actual damages, A$20 in court
costs).

Fines: A$12 (triple damages)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:06:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 309 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe, as if he was wearing the Purple Robe, has been chosen again,
 and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 309
  Subject: P 1287
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Oct 18, 1996, 21:06h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Proposal 1287, "Similarity" was accepted.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

I know it was accepted. But there was a message by Techno that said his
votes was lost, and since the results were 9-4, eir vote might have
changed this. As eir reply to me below demonstartes, Techno voted yes on
that proposal, which wold not change the fact that it was accepted. This
is just meant to establish that, and prevent future problems based on an
alegged uncertainty.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:49:06 +0000
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: acka: Q about some lost votes of yours

> From:          [email-masked]
> Date:          Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:46:51 +0200 (EET)
> To:            romey
> Subject:       acka: Q about some lost votes of yours

> A couple of weeks back you posted a message that said Wayne lost some of your votes,
> There was one proposal whose acceptance might be affected by this  - P1287
> Similarity. The results were 9 yes, 4 no, one present, and you are listed
> as having abstained. Do you happen to recall you vote (or better yet,
> have a record of it)?
> I'm sorry for bothering you with after you have already left the game,
>
> Niccolo Flychuck
> (Uri Bruck)
>
>I voted yes to all proposals that showed me as having abstained.  I
was voting yes to make up for, and hopefully help pass some of the
props that failed due to the UW strike.  Hope this helps.

[snip]
Thanks.

Techno
(Jerome Herrman)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:09:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 305 Verdict

CFJ 305 has been judged TRUE.

Mohammed will win [a] cycle 4 days from the date of this post if this
is not appealed.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgement 305
  Subject: Another PartyChess Paradox
Initiator: Mohammed
    Judge: Uncle Sam (left the game)
2nd Judge: breadbox (selected Oct 14, 1996, 22:35h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

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.

breadbox's Reasoning:

As others have mentioned, this self-referential situation has two
possible "attractors." The first is that, for the purposes of this
situation, the CopyCat being captured has no rules regarding how a
piece is captured (and vice versa). Thus, a CopyCat can never capture
another CopyCat. The second is that, since a CopyCat can potentially
make any possible move, given the right circumstances, a CopyCat can
always capture another CopyCat, no matter their relative
positions. (And, again, vice versa.)

While the first interpretation is certainly preferable, from the
viewpoint of aesthetics and playability, this is not enough to dispel
the ambiguity. A reasonable reading could conceivably lead one to
either. Thus, the paradox is not resolvable as the rule currently
stands.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:32:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1332

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1332 - Sun Oct 13 20:43:45 EDT 1996
> Censorship
> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

> This rule specifically does not apply to itself.

Haven't we had the "this statement is false" paradox before?  Just
say no to censorship :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:43:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1351

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1351 -- Fri 18 Oct 8:39 CDT 1996
> Banana Tree Transfer
> snowgod (Phil Ackley)
> 
> Amend R27 to read in full:

This is an invalid rule change.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 21:55:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1355

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1355 -- Fri 18 Oct 8:47 CDT 1996
> Public Information
> Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
> 
> Create a rule entitled "Public Information" which contains the following
> text:
> "
> 1. Any information which an Officer is required to maintain is considered
> to be Public information.

> 2. All Public information is available to any Player on request by e-mail.

I object to this proposal for the following reason, and wish its 
retraction with the following problems fixed, if it is to be rebsubmitted:

There are cases where an officer may be required by the rules to keep
information that should not be public, such as the tabulator in regards
to votes and Tammany bribes.  This rule will break that secrecy, which
is important.  The GamesMaster or the Speaker, when acting as a referee
in a game situation, is required to keep information that should not be
revealed (such as the map in the case of (hopefully) R 1348.2 :-), or
in games in the G & C page...).

I understand the *intent* of this proposal, but I believe its wording
leaves it open to the above problems, which are serious.

I do not think this proposal is necessary.  I'm sure any officer here
would gladly give information from their web page via e-mail to a
non-web user.  If you must resubmit it, put the phrase "publically
knowable" before "information" and you may be ok.  Please RFC it
first though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:07:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1340

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1340 - Tue Oct 15 19:59 EDT 1996
> (Oops)

> {{[The confirmation periods for Wayne and this is not a name shall now
> end, if they have not already done so.]}}

Oops.  I wonder if the CSRR can time a CSR that hits at the exact time
this becomes publically knowable to remove those [notes brackets].  
Perhaps a time-bomb CSR with a one week self repeal clause.

Malenkai
nit-picking too much again

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

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 23:25:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: P1344

It was never my intention to malign Guy Fawkes,  or imply that the
submission or voting for this Proposal is heretical.

It is merely my personal wish that the Earth remain flat.  I am something
of a traditionalist,  and like my Earth FLAT.

I encourage all Ackanomians to vote in the manner that will best serve
Ackanomic,  and preserve our heritage.  Do not let "conscience" or fear
of orthodoxy,  or even rebelliousness influance your votes.

I would also like to congratiulate Guy Fawkes on a rather beautiful
oration on the merits of P1344.  Elequence,  style and Right thinking; 
almost made me change my vote.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 00:38:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: P1344

[email-masked] wrote:

> It is merely my personal wish that the Earth remain flat.  I am something
> of a traditionalist,  and like my Earth FLAT.

Generally people who talk so much about a belief are insecure in that
belief.  I say we round up the whole flat-earth club and call a collective
witchhunt, as we know they THINK the earth is round, otherwise they
would not have to keep reassuring each other by constantly saying it
is flat ;)

Malenkai
Enlightened

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #303
*******************************