Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #320
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, October 30 1996      Volume 01 : Number 320

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:11:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Malenkai's loophole revisited

I've been looking at the Patent Infringement Rule, and I think it's 
ineffective.  Can't a player just create (for example) a Crystal Chalice, 
and then (by R115) announce that it is a type of Frog?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 23:13:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Wednesday, the 30th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 12 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

PS: Since the last magic letter posting was after *ping* #7, I can't 
accpet new magic letters until after *ping* #13.

Guy Fawkes
good night

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:15:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Malenkai's loophole revisited

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> I've been looking at the Patent Infringement Rule, and I think it's
> ineffective.  Can't a player just create (for example) a Crystal Chalice,
> and then (by R115) announce that it is a type of Frog?

But its a Chalice, not a Frog :).  There have been a couple of CFJs
that have established game custom that the English word has its
English meaning unless the rules specify otherwise.

Weak, perhaps, but its out there.  Cruise the CFJ archives.  I certainly
would not want by bank account hinging on such a rule of law, however.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:55:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 314 (mr cwm)

> > > As of this writing, the legality of the Brass Monkey climbing
> > > the Gaol following the acceptance of 10 consecutive proposals cannot be
> > > determined with finality.
> 
> > It seemed to me like saying: "It cannot be determined with finality
> > whether the Brass Monkey can lift a 5 kilo dumbbell".
> 
> Actually, I think it can be.  R 823, which defines the Brass Monkey, says 
> it has no function unless specified by another rule.  Other rules give it 
> functions of climbing the tallest building and making a proclamation, but 
> no rule gives it the function of lifting a dumbbell of any mass, so I 
> think it follows that the Brass Moneky cannot lift a dumbbell.

The critical point, though, is that which tower the Brass Monkey
climbs has no other bearing on the rules. In other words, nothing
about the game state is affected by it. I think it is safe to say that
the Brass Monkey climbs whatever building is tallest.

Which building may be impossible to determine with finality, but that
doesn't stop the Brass Monkey from climbing it. And the *legality* of
which building the Brass Monkey climbs is quite possible to determine:
the rules don't care.

b

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #320
*******************************