Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #329
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, November 3 1996       Volume 01 : Number 329

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 17:53:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Entities

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > I have not read it yet, but this may be a problem.  There is alot of
> > passionate pro R 115 entity fervor out there :)
> 	Nah.  Trinkets are more fun; they can be traded, and other people 
> can't blow them up.
> 
> --Mohammed

No, but sometimes when creating entities as just a touch of style, it's 
nice not to have to pay for them;  on the other hand, sometimes you feel 
like blowing two-thirds your cash on some tower... :)

Guy Fawkes
thinking the "Monument to Futility" should now be the "Monument to Poverty"

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 20:12:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Saturday, the 2nd day of November, 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* 15 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 21:50:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Entities

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         I added the Bronze Torch rule to the hit list (if you don't
> mind; a whole paragraph pretty much drops out of it in the process.)

As long as they are not tradeable :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 22:03:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 317 Verdict

CFJ 317 has been judged TRUE.  The lonely Blueprint for Holy Water is
thus destroyed in accordance with R 594.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 317
  Subject: Nice try, snowgod
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Oct 31, 1996, 13:21h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Blueprint for "Holy Water" made public on Oct 31, 1996, is in
conflict with R 729.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The Blueprint seems to imply that "Enlighenment" is an attribute that
is conferred to a player upon a particular event occurring, much like
receiving points or the title of Belt Holder, and as such, is detached
from the actual event that conferred it.  Therefore, so the Blueprint's
rationale goes, it can be removed, much as points or the title of
Belt Holder could be.

In the case of R 729, however, I am going to argue that Enlighenment is
a condition held in force continiously by rule, and is *not* detached
from the rule-based condition that holds it in sway, and thus the action
of the blueprint that claims to remove Enlightenment is in conflict with
R 729.

>From R 729: 
> Any player who has been burned as a heretic exactly once is considered
> Enlightened

This rule does not confer an attribute or title of Enlightenment, it
continiously says, as long as the condition remains true, that the
player is Enlighened.  Thus, by rule, a player who has been burned
exactly once as a heretic (and as long as this truth remains so) has
this condition of Enlightenment continuosly imposed upon them by the
rules, whether they want it or not.

The Blueprint in question does not remove this condition, therefore its
attempt to remove the resultant Enlightenment is in conflict with R 729.

Were rule 729 worded

> Upon being burned as a heretic for the first time, the player is
> conferred the title of Enlightened One.

the Blueprint would not be in conflict (on this count, anyway).  It is
a fine distinction, and I ask the judge to consider it.

I note on a verdict of TRUE, the Blueprint and all Gadgets made from
it are destroyed in accordance with R 594.

Calvin N Hobbes's Reasoning:

Malenkai put this well. There is a distinction in as much that other rules
make the distinction. Players are "made" enlightened, not "given".

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

Date: Sat, 02 Nov 1996 23:24:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 118 Verdict

CFCJ 118 has been judged TRUE.  The following penalty will be assessed
after the 3 day grace period:

snowgod is Fined A$19, payable to the Treasury, and Sentenced to 1 day
in Gaol.  His Fine was reduced A$12 from the Suggested Penalty because
he has already paid mr cwm A$12 for a newspaper he cannot publish.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 118
  Subject:  More Illegal Publishing
Initiator:  Mohammed
    Judge:  fnord (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:32 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

Mohammed's Reasoning:

snowgod published an article in a paper he does not own:  "is".

Rule 482 ("Office of the Financier and Free Market") reads, in part:
- ---
2) An entity is Tradeable if and only if the rules specify that it
is, otherwise it is non-Tradeable. The rules may specify specific
conditions or mechanisms for non-Tradeable entities to be traded or
transferred; this rule defers to any such rules where there is a
conflict. Tradeable entities may only be transferred by methods
described in the rules.
- ---

Rule 891, "The Press", reads:
- ---
     The player that creates a newspaper is said to own that newspaper.
     No player may own more than three newspapers at any one time.
     Newspapers are tradeable. An owner of a newspaper may close it down

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

Although R891 says that newspapers are tradeable and R482 specifies how
Tradeable entities can be transferred, Rule 891 also says that the player
who creates a newspaper is its owner.

Since snowgod is not the creator of "is", he does not own it, and it is
illegal for him to publish articles in it without permission.

snowgod supposedly managed to purchase the paper from mr cwm, but I believe
that purchase was ineffectual.  Regardless of whether the deal was legal (and
that's a trickly legal point, I guess) it can't have changed the owner of the
newspaper permanently:  R891, I believe, would transfer it right back to mr
cwm.

Suggested Penalty:

I recommend a FINE of A$31 from snowgod to the Treasury and a SENTENCE of
1 day in Gaol for our beloved President.

fnord's Reasoning:

Going by game custom (which I always consider first, though not necessarily
more important), whenever anyone trades something 'tradeable', we have been
going on as if the persons in possession of the items are now the owners of
those items.  However, checking the Rules, most especially R482, it never
actually defines that the players OWN the items they were transferred, merely
that they are in possession of them.

Secondly, from what I have seen throughout the rules, in any instance where
an entity is created, it was created unowned, except in the case of a 
newspaper.
In the case of newspapers, it states explicitly who owns it:  the creator.
Later on in the rule it may say that newspapers are tradeable, but as 
outlined
above, trading does not imply owning.  It then goes on to say that only that
owner can write in the newspaper.

As a result of these Rules, snowgod may currently be in possession of 'is', 
but
he does not own it.  Therefore, he can not publish an article in it without
permission from mr cwm.  Therefore, he indeed broke the rules, and this CFCJ
is ruled TRUE.

Actual Penalty:

snowgod is Fined A$19, payable to the Treasury, and Sentenced to 1 day in 
Gaol.
His Fine was reduced A$12 from the Suggested Penalty because he has already 
paid
mr cwm A$12 for a newspaper he cannot publish.

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 00:56:24 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Rental

I hereby ack snowgod's offer on my first Whamiol

Habeous Corpus

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #329
*******************************