Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #322
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, October 31 1996      Volume 01 : Number 322

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:15:14 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1363 Fails 

Quorum achieved on P1362: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
6 YES votes - 4 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS

Proposal 1362 - Sun 20 Oct 7:03 CDT 1996
In Which We May Be Hearing Things
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

Mohammed loses 7 points:                        -9 -> -16

YES Votes:
- ---------
/dev/joe                     Vulcan             -3 -> 0
ThinMan                      Vulcan             -6 -> -3
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)         15 -> 18
fnord                                            3 -> 6
Mohammed                                       -16 -> -13
snowgod                      (None Yet)         -2 -> 1

NO Votes:
- --------
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 26
Habeous Corpus                                   = 8
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 23
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 3

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
breadbox
IdiotBoy

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin
Bascule
Calvin N Hobbes
Brinjal

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 01:15:18 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: More Tabulator Rambling 

Just wanted to say again that I am truly sorry about the delay in the
voting results.  I have been way too busy for my own good :).  Sadly
enough, over the weekend here a man shot his and killed his two children,
and shot and injured his wife.  A police officer who showed up for a
different call (in the wrong place at the wrong time) was shot in the head
and killed also. Tonight was the Funeral for the slain cop, which I
attended along with 2500 other people. Had to be one of the saddest things
I have ever seen, but it was also the most moving funeral ever.  The
officer was buried with a 21 gun salute and a full honor gaurd.  Then a
procession of 250+ police cars (that's just APD there were more troopers
and cops from other towns plus fire engines, ambulances, securitiy gaurds,
everything) mad their way slowly across town (25 mph) in a 2x2 formation -
the procession took at least an hour

Sorry to dump on you guys, just wanted to get it off my chest.

snowgod
sad

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 02:33:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1368 Passes

> Quorum achieved on P1368: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
> 9 YES votes - 2 NO votes - 2 PRESENT vote - Proposal PASSES
> P 1368 was modest.
> 
> Proposal 1368 - Mon 21 Oct 7:12 CDT 1996
> No Magic Letter Hogs
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)

Aw, RATS! Just another eight hours more delay ... I wanted to be the
only player to ever earn the title "Magic Letter Hog."

Oh, well. If anyone else out there is thinking of naming a magic
letter, may I suggest "A"? I honestly think that this letter will tell
us more about the truth than any of the other 24.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:25:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Swinger receving points

Yesterday the following Swingers received points:
Oct. 29 Brinjal +3   : Swinger with Highest Positive Weight.

All other Swinger have Weight zero, and therefore receive no points.

Niccolo FLychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 07:29:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appreciating the Web-Harfer

I have a counter-inflationary idea on my workbench.  I could tie FO 
salaries into it, possibly giving them a slight raise.

Also, I think it's odd that all FO's receive the same wage despite 
drastically different workloads.  Maybe I can fit that in, too.

Guy Fawkes

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > 
> > However, I note that functional officers do get paid -- the pay is very
> > little, though, compared to the amount of work some offices require: A$3
> > per week.  I easily do as much work for Ackanomic as Web-Harfer in a week
> > as the Poet Laureate will probably do for Malenkai's offer of A$40, 
> > although the poet's work requires more creativity.
> 
> I believe this salary was fixed before the Great A$ Devaluation
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 07:30:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 314 (mr cwm)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> It is sufficient to show that there exist one single highest building in
> order to make this CFJ false. If you want to really confuse the brass
> monkey, make at least two buildings the same height , and all other
> buildings shorter. In that case, there would be no highest building.
> Niccolo Flychuck

You revealed my next p-win attempt before its time.  I'm going to go sulk 
in a corner, now.  Drat!  Xanadu is round.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:58:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 314 (mr cwm)

>
>Call For Judgement 314
>  Subject: "What Do I Have To Lose?" Paradox
>Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>    Judge: mr cwm (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:39h EDT)
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:
>
>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.
>
>Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

[Reasoning boils down to: we don't know whether the Gaol is
the tallest building.]

Guy Fawkes demonstrates effectively that it is unclear which
building the Brass Monkey would climb as a result of R 824
under the specified circustances.  Does that constitute an
eligible paradox?  This CFJ is much more complex than it
first appears.

My primary argument against this CFJ is that it is not an
issue of legality at all, but rather a question of determinism.
Legality is a concept that I find applicable only to players
and player actions.  Acka-only entities can only behave as
described by the rules, for they have no existance outside
of that frame of reference -- thus "legality" is not really
relevant to them.  Although _we_ cannot determine whether
or not it is the Gaol that the Monkey would climb, that does
not mean that the Monkey cannot behave as described by
R 824.  Indeed he will do, because R 824 says he will.  That
we cannot figure out which building he climbed is irrelevant,
and does not constitute a paradox.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch Holder
wearing the Purple Robe of CFJ Repuls... err... Justice

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:57:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1364 Passes

Acting Tabulator wrote:
> 
> Quorum achieved on P1364: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
> 10 YES votes - 3 NO votes - 1 PRESENT vote - Proposal PASSES
> 
> Proposal 1364 - Sun 20 Oct 7:06 CDT 1996
> Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)                              = 11
> Tammany  (A$5 Malenkai and A$10 snowgod)

I did not bribe tammany on this proposal.  Could you send me the
e-mail so I can check my sanity?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:02:46 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 315 (ThinMan)

Malenkai wrote:

>ThinMan's robe has paid off!  He has been chosen, and has 3 days
>to accept/decline.

Holy smokes!  Something has penetrated the purple haze
emenating from this robe!  Look, ma, a CFJ!

I accept judgement on CFJ 315.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch Holder
wearing the Purple Robe of Justice

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:34:11 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Appreciating the Web-Harfer

>
>I just came to a great realization of why /dev/joe is so quiet on the Public
>Forum.  He's /dang/ busy keeping those web pages updated for us.  Since
>those Officers don't seem to be getting paid (something I shall have to
>propose to correct forthwith)

Actually, functional officers _do_ get paid.  Check the rules
governing functional offices in general.  The pay is a pittance,
though, and if you wish to propose to change that then you'll
have my support.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:45:22 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 314 (mr cwm)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>It is sufficient to show that there exist one single highest building in
>order to make this CFJ false. If you want to really confuse the brass
>monkey, make at least two buildings the same height , and all other
>buildings shorter. In that case, there would be no highest building.

One could argue that R 824 makes it implicit that there _is_
a tallest building.  If such an argument is accepted, then
making two buildings be the same height does not fall under
the auspices of R 115.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:56:33 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: P1370 Passes

>Proposal 1370 - Mon 21 Oct 7:14 CDT 1996
>Creation of a PartyChessPiece Archer
>Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
>
>NO Votes:
>--------
>fnord                                            6 -> 9
>ThinMan                      Vulcan              0 -> 3

Perhaps I mistyped, or something, but I was _sure_ that I voted YES
for this one.  I did, however, vote NO on the previous (retracted)
version.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:00:20 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: P1364 Passes

According to R 1364:

>     Pointy ears: Cost -- 4 A$ each, or 6 A$ for a pair. Pointy ears
>     don't do much, but players who have them may threaten other
>     players with a Vulcan Neck Pinch and be taken seriously. Players
>     without pointy ears may also make this threat, but they are liable
>     to be laughed at upon doing so. Players with only one pointy ear
>     are liable to be laughed at regardless of their actions.

I am spending A$ 6 for a pair of pointy ears.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:02:36 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Malenkai's loophole revisited

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Mohammed 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?
>

Maybe, but if someone tried it, I'd argue that it was no longer a Crystal
Chalice, but a Crystal Chalice Frog.  Then it'd be up to the judge.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:14:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: My ears

I am purchasing a pair of pointy ears for A$6, in accordance with R1364.

Proudly I put them on.

Niccolo Flychuck
Wearing a pair of pointy ears.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:21:38 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: P1364 Passes

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, ThinMan wrote:

>
>I am spending A$ 6 for a pair of pointy ears.
>

Very nice.  I'm envious.  I wish I could have a pair of pointy ears, but
after blowing A$216 on an incomplete Prosthetic Forehead collection, I'm
on a budget.  But I bet I could afford one.  OK - I spend A$4 for one
pointy ear.  Do I have to replace one of my own ears with it?  If not, I
wear it diametrically opposed to my nose, so I can hear you laughing
behind me. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:28:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1364 Passes

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Acting Tabulator wrote:
> > 
> > Quorum achieved on P1364: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
> > 10 YES votes - 3 NO votes - 1 PRESENT vote - Proposal PASSES
> > 
> > Proposal 1364 - Sun 20 Oct 7:06 CDT 1996
> > Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication
> > Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)                              = 11
> > Tammany  (A$5 Malenkai and A$10 snowgod)
> 
> I did not bribe tammany on this proposal.  Could you send me the
> e-mail so I can check my sanity?
> 
> Malenkai
> 

I'm fairly certain I sent a A$10 bribe in on it; maybe things got confused.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:34:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 314 (mr cwm)

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> 
> >It is sufficient to show that there exist one single highest building in
> >order to make this CFJ false. If you want to really confuse the brass
> >monkey, make at least two buildings the same height , and all other
> >buildings shorter. In that case, there would be no highest building.
> 
> One could argue that R 824 makes it implicit that there _is_
> a tallest building.  If such an argument is accepted, then
> making two buildings be the same height does not fall under
> the auspices of R 115.
> 
> ThinMan

You wouldn't have to use R115.  Simply have two building have towers of 
the same height, and taller than everything else.  Then the rules 
_explicitly_ say there is no tallest building (all-non Towers are shorter 
than even the shortest Tower), and your implicit argument becomes 
significicantly less tenable.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:56:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1364 Passes

I am paying the 50 A$ fee for an extra head.  I am placing my bright 
green Prosthetic Forehead on this extra head.

Guy Fawkes
Acka's only wearer of multiple prosthetic foreheads 

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:07:18 -0500 (EST)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: P1364 Passes

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> According to R 1364:
> 
> >     Pointy ears: Cost -- 4 A$ each, or 6 A$ for a pair. Pointy ears
> >     don't do much, but players who have them may threaten other
> >     players with a Vulcan Neck Pinch and be taken seriously. Players
> >     without pointy ears may also make this threat, but they are liable
> >     to be laughed at upon doing so. Players with only one pointy ear
> >     are liable to be laughed at regardless of their actions.
> 
> I am spending A$ 6 for a pair of pointy ears.
> 
> ThinMan
> 
Me, too!

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:12:06 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 314 (mr cwm)

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>You wouldn't have to use R115.  Simply have two building have towers of 
>the same height, and taller than everything else.  Then the rules 
>_explicitly_ say there is no tallest building (all-non Towers are shorter 
>than even the shortest Tower), and your implicit argument becomes 
>significicantly less tenable.

Good point.  We do not, however, have that problem right now.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 13:30:52 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 108 accepted

To:   Ackanomians
From: CSRR Officer mr cwm

I note that CSR 108 has been accepted by the lack of objections, and the
following changes to the Rule Set take place (or took place last Monday).

(Does anyone know if we need to bring Techno's Hall of Elders nomination
to a stop?) 

- --------

Amend R1276 by replacing "round" with "game" in the last sentance of the
first paragraph of section G.

- --------

Amend R1099 section 3 to insert "days" after "3" in the first sentance of
section 3.

- --------

Amend R1099 section 3 by appending to it "{{The nomination period of Wayne
and this is not a name ends now, if it has not already done so.}}"

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:31:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 (fnord)

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> fnord has been selected to judge the following, and has
> 3 days to accept or decline the appointment.

I accept.

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 11:37:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 (fnord)

You spake thusly
> 
> Well I certainlyh admire Mohammed's integrity in keeping newspapers
> protected, I find one major fault with this CFCJ.  I foget the rule
> number, but one recently passed rul proclaims that if two parts of a rule
> conflict with each other, the part that comes later in the rule claims
> precedence as is certainly the case here.

I was looking for that rule when I had my last CFJ, but could not
find it.  Turns out it was merely part of a CFJ that mentioned it
but later disregarded it, making it merely a part of implicit
game custom, if at all.

if it is a rule, I would *love* to know which one it is.

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:51:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 (fnord)

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Michael J. Thomas wrote:

> You spake thusly
> > 
> > Well I certainlyh admire Mohammed's integrity in keeping newspapers
> > protected, I find one major fault with this CFCJ.  I foget the rule
> > number, but one recently passed rul proclaims that if two parts of a rule
> > conflict with each other, the part that comes later in the rule claims
> > precedence as is certainly the case here.
> 
> I was looking for that rule when I had my last CFJ, but could not
> find it.  Turns out it was merely part of a CFJ that mentioned it
> but later disregarded it, making it merely a part of implicit
> game custom, if at all.
> 
> if it is a rule, I would *love* to know which one it is.
> 
> fnord
>
It was proposed as an ammendment to the rule about resolving predence,
should be in the 400's. In fact, I'm gonna look for it right now.
Niccolo Flychuck
 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 21:55:57 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 (fnord)

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Michael J. Thomas wrote:

> You spake thusly
> > 
> > Well I certainlyh admire Mohammed's integrity in keeping newspapers
> > protected, I find one major fault with this CFCJ.  I foget the rule
> > number, but one recently passed rul proclaims that if two parts of a rule
> > conflict with each other, the part that comes later in the rule claims
> > precedence as is certainly the case here.
> 
> I was looking for that rule when I had my last CFJ, but could not
> find it.  Turns out it was merely part of a CFJ that mentioned it
> but later disregarded it, making it merely a part of implicit
> game custom, if at all.
> 
> if it is a rule, I would *love* to know which one it is.
> 
> fnord

I was way off, it's R210 - Resolving Conflicts

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 12:40:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Church attempt #2

Um, I was gonna make an announcement about founding a new church, when
something in the Synod rule (R1356) caught my eye.

In the section about Profit Sharing, it states that

"Profits are defined as (A$ currently owned by the Church minus 
(A$ owned by the Church after the previous profit distribution,
or on the most recent date the Synod was not in Session, which
was more recent))"

This does not make sense to me.  Wouldn't it make more sense if the word
"Church" above was replaced by "Synod"?  Also, I believe the word
"ever" could/should be added after the word "which".  Can this be
accomplished by a CSR, or should an amendment be put through the works?

fnord
(Now hopeful Founder of Church of RANDOLF, look for more details alter)

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 23:56:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church attempt #2

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Michael J. Thomas wrote:

> Um, I was gonna make an announcement about founding a new church, when
> something in the Synod rule (R1356) caught my eye.
> 
> In the section about Profit Sharing, it states that
> 
> "Profits are defined as (A$ currently owned by the Church minus 
> (A$ owned by the Church after the previous profit distribution,
> or on the most recent date the Synod was not in Session, which
> was more recent))"
> 
> This does not make sense to me.  Wouldn't it make more sense if the word
> "Church" above was replaced by "Synod"?  Also, I believe the word
> "ever" could/should be added after the word "which".  Can this be
> accomplished by a CSR, or should an amendment be put through the works?

Not only would it make more sense, but that is how I remember writing it,
or at least intending to write it. It should be Synod, not Church, and
'ever', following 'which' would clarify this.
I'm gonna have to look through the entire rule again to find additional
typos.
I think in this case an actual ammendment needs to be used, since this
changes the effect of the rule. 
Naturally I'll support a Modest ammendment that would fix those errors.

Speaking of CSR. Due to another typo, the PCPD rule about Archer is
actually called "Creaion of a PartyChessPiece Archer" , either a CSR or
the Spelling Bee should be able to fix this, in order to make it comply
with the PCPD rules.
Niccolo Flychuck
 > 
> fnord
> (Now hopeful Founder of Church of RANDOLF, look for more details alter)
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 16:54:06 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Spelling Bee

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> Speaking of CSR. Due to another typo, the PCPD rule about Archer is
> actually called "Creaion of a PartyChessPiece Archer" , either a CSR or
> the Spelling Bee should be able to fix this, in order to make it comply
> with the PCPD rules.

The Spelling Bee is flying to the rescue! :-)

In rule 985.15, "Creaion of a PartyChessPiece Archer", change
"Creaion" to "Creation" in the title of the rule.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:01:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

Happy, happy! Joy, joy!

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> > Speaking of CSR. Due to another typo, the PCPD rule about Archer is
> > actually called "Creaion of a PartyChessPiece Archer" , either a CSR or
> > the Spelling Bee should be able to fix this, in order to make it comply
> > with the PCPD rules.
> 
> The Spelling Bee is flying to the rescue! :-)
> 
> In rule 985.15, "Creaion of a PartyChessPiece Archer", change
> "Creaion" to "Creation" in the title of the rule.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 18:55:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

CFJ 315 is judged TRUE

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 315
  Subject: Grabbing your Donkey
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:56h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

It is legal to grab one's own donkey.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

Personally, I don't care.  I think, however, that this should be false.
Section B of the GAD rule says "grab _another_ player's donkey on the GAL"
is a legal move; it says nothing about grabbing your own.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

It is legal under R115 to grab one's own donkey.  Thus the statement
submitted for judgement is true.  However, R 1276 is clear:

     B. Each Round, a player on the GAL will either
     (a) Cover their donkey,
     (b) Grab another player's donkey on the GAL,
     (c) Stand Around Admiring their Donkey,
     (d) Resign (this action is only permissible in the first round)
     [No other actions specified ...]

Grabbing one's own donkey is not on that list, and therefore does not
constitute a grab-a-donkey move.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:13:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> CFJ 315 is judged TRUE
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 315
>   Subject: Grabbing your Donkey
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: ThinMan (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:56h EST)
> Judgement: TRUE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It is legal to grab one's own donkey.

I'm very tempted to appeal this, but rather, since my case is not
airtight, and does not merit the risk of 25 points, perhaps ThinMan
or the Supreme Court (or anyone) could comment on the following
reasoning:

The game of Grab-a-Donkey, its equipment (the donkeys), and the act
of playing Grab-a-Donkey are protected entities and actions, respectively.

The first 2 paragraphs of R 592 prohibit the manipulation described in
the CFJs statement, but then there is the "Trombone" clause of R 592:

> Manipulation of a protected entitiy is permissable if such manipulation
> is not explicitly regulated by the rules, and such manipulation would
> not have a material effect on the game. In other words, the game state
> must be the same after the manipulation as it would have been had the
> manipulation not occurred.

The first sentence is clear.  In this case, manipulation of donkeys
*is* explicitly regulated by R 1276, therefore the Trombone clause
does not apply to grabbing ones own donkey, thus grabbing ones own
donkey is a protected action (or manipulation of a protected entity),
and prohibited by R 592, thus R 115 does not apply.

Somehow I feel the case for FALSE would be stronger if the CFJs statement
were "It is legal to grab one's own donkey in the Game of Grab-a-Donkey",
but I still think FALSE was warranted in this case as well, as there is
no reason to believe that R 1276 donkeys do not scope to beyond R 1276,
leaving open the possibility of R 115 donkeys for those who R 1276 
doesn't happen to apply at any moment in time :)

Malenkai
no responses by me beyond this point

> Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:
> 
> Personally, I don't care.  I think, however, that this should be false.
> Section B of the GAD rule says "grab _another_ player's donkey on the GAL"
> is a legal move; it says nothing about grabbing your own.
> 
> ThinMan's Reasoning:
> 
> It is legal under R115 to grab one's own donkey.  Thus the statement
> submitted for judgement is true.  However, R 1276 is clear:
> 
>      B. Each Round, a player on the GAL will either
>      (a) Cover their donkey,
>      (b) Grab another player's donkey on the GAL,
>      (c) Stand Around Admiring their Donkey,
>      (d) Resign (this action is only permissible in the first round)
>      [No other actions specified ...]
> 
> Grabbing one's own donkey is not on that list, and therefore does not
> constitute a grab-a-donkey move.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 17:53:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New nomic found

I have located a new net-nomic, the Established State of Faint Humanity, 
run out of New Zealand.

They use a turn based system, and have an interesting way of judging 
cases -- the player with the highest score, lowest score, and the most 
recent player to get a proposal passed for a three-player tribunal.  I 
would estimate their harf level at about 7 on a scale of 1 to 10.

It may be appropriate for the Ambassador to send them a greeting to the 
nomic community.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 18:52:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1369 Passes

> 
> Quorum achieved on P1369: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
> 6 YES votes - 0 NO votes - 6 PRESENT vote - Proposal PASSES
> 
> Proposal 1369 - Mon 21 Oct 7:14 CDT 1996
> Otzma Cards
> Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)

This was Niccolo Flychuck's 40th accepted proposal.  I am awarding him
another Silver Stripe.

/dev/joe
Senator, /dev/senate3

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

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:35:42 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

Score Log since last report:
Habeous Corpus lost 4 points to the Whamiols, retroactively, as I described
  in a couple public posts.
Proposal scoring on P1356-1361: 1357 and 1359 were modest
Habeous Corpus lost 3 points for failing to post Phoebe's wisdom
Habeous Corpus lost 2 points to the Whamiols Oct 28.
Proposal scoring on P1362-1370: 1368 was modest.
Habeous Corpus lost 1 more point to the first Whamiol today.

The Victory Eggplants belonging to /dev/joe, ThinMan, and Mohammed were
destroyed.

Current Scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
55      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
43      Guy Fawkes           Ag  (Robert Shimmin)
27      Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
15      Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
14      Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
12      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
9       breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
7       snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
6       mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
3       /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
0       ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
0       Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
- -15     Bascule              Av  (Matt Black)
- -15     Robert Sevin         Nv  (Mitchell Harding)

Status:
A=Active, N=Nonactive, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice,
D=Dead, v=Victory Eggplant, g=Chartreuse Goose

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:32:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1369 Passes

I had no idea. I had completely lost count. I am very excited to receive
this silver stripe. 
Niccolo Flychuck

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > 
> > Quorum achieved on P1369: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
> > 6 YES votes - 0 NO votes - 6 PRESENT vote - Proposal PASSES
> > 
> > Proposal 1369 - Mon 21 Oct 7:14 CDT 1996
> > Otzma Cards
> > Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
> 
> This was Niccolo Flychuck's 40th accepted proposal.  I am awarding him
> another Silver Stripe.
> 
> /dev/joe
> Senator, /dev/senate3
> 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #322
*******************************