Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #342
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, November 10 1996       Volume 01 : Number 342

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:18:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Treasures!

I think snowgod said, "I am burying the Whamiold and creating the 
following treasure map: [description of finding conditions]"

I would interpret that to mean the text included in the message IS the 
map, no more, no less.  The previous treasure maps usually included some 
indication that this may or may not be the whole map.  This implies that 
it is.

Guy
Fawkes

> Malenkai
> whose own treasures will probably never be discovered

they might be if in addition to the WHERE TO LOOK which I believe you've 
told us, you gave us the WHAT THE HECK TO DO ONCE YOU'RE THERE, which I 
cannot find.  :)

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 23:30:38 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Whamiol burying

Since it is now Sturday,  one week after snowgod rented my Whamiol,  I am
publicly anouncing I am taking possession of it.  This anouncement should
not be necessary,  however there seems to be some confusion as to the
status of the Whamiol.  While snowgod did claim e was burying it (indeed,
 there seems to be a lot of dirt clogging the mechanism,  maybe I should
have charged snowgod with a cleaning charge) and did claim to create a
treasure map showing its location,  not once did e claim that the Whamiol
was indeed Treasure.

If e had claimed the status of Treasure for the Whamiol,  I might have
had no recourse but to pay,  and then call a CFCJ for illegal
manipulation of an entity of which e had possession but not ownership. 
But since e did not,  I can dig it up at any time and reclaim possession
now that the rental period is over.  

If snowgod tries to claim that I did not take my possession back,  and
claims that my Whamiol is still buried,  I may still call a CFCJ on eir
actions.  I did not know what type of scam snowgod had in mind when e
rented the Whamiol,  but I never thought e would sink to simple
extortion.  And such sloppy extortion at that.

If it turns out that a CFCJ is not appropriate,  or even legal,  in this
case,  I might challenge snowgod to a Duel,  just because of the time and
effort it will cost me to clean my once shiny Whamiol. (At least I won't
have trouble telling them apart now.)

Habeous Corpus
who used to think better of snowgod's scams

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 22:35:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Whamiol burying

As a public service, please describe the physical appearance of a 
Whamiol.  I was unaware that they were shiny.

Guy Fawkes
the Chartreuse Goose is not shiny

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> If it turns out that a CFCJ is not appropriate,  or even legal,  in this
> case,  I might challenge snowgod to a Duel,  just because of the time and
> effort it will cost me to clean my once shiny Whamiol. (At least I won't
> have trouble telling them apart now.)
> 
> Habeous Corpus
> who used to think better of snowgod's scams
> 

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:24:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Treasures!

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> I think snowgod said, "I am burying the Whamiold and creating the
> following treasure map: [description of finding conditions]"
> 
> I would interpret that to mean the text included in the message IS the
> map, no more, no less. 

Fortunately you are not a judge to CFJ the matter :).  From R 1348.2:

> The map writer is free to disclose all, part, or none of the map
> publically or privately at any time, or drop hints, clues, obscure
> riddles, etc in any manner they choose, even if such is not obvious,
> is subtle, or is encrypted

I would construe "any manner they choose" allowing the posting of a
completly false map, followed by a claim that it is genuine.  Or the
posting of a map with one key word changed, followed by a claim that
it is genuine, or posting of an incomplete map and claiming it is 
complete, or posting a map for treasure 101 that really is for 102.

Any of these tacts, and several others, would fall under "any manner
they choose".  This is not a claim that snowgod did any of these things,
but the language allows the possibility of outright lying about the
authenticity of a map.  

The fact that previously released clues that claim to show part or none
of maps, or are of a particular style, does not preclude this type of
activity on snowgod's part.  The rule requires that a genuine map be
posted and not lied about only when the conditions are met, and requires
that a genuine map be written at the time the treasure is buried.  That
is my interpretation, and as the writer of the rule, it is obviously
colored, potentially not objective.  It would come down to the judgement
of a neutral judge.

A good CFJ statement may be:  "A player burying treasure may lie about
the genuineness or contents when publically posting information 
about a treasure map; in fact, they may claim a post is a verbatim copy
of a treasure map condition, when in fact it is not, unless they are
announcing the condition has been met."

I would judge TRUE.  We may have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps I should add this language explictly to R 1348.2, but "any manner
they choose" seems sufficient to be in the spirit of the game, and that
is a spirit rule. 

> they might be if in addition to the WHERE TO LOOK which I believe you've
> told us, you gave us the WHAT THE HECK TO DO ONCE YOU'RE THERE, which I
> cannot find.  :)

You seem to be off base.  Perhaps if you indicated what you know, I can
indicate what you don't.  The clues are rather explicit on how to meet the
conditions, IMO.

BTW, I am particularity sensitive to SHOUTING on the internet, for some
reason.  I probably shouldn't bother to point that out, but I did.  
Sorry :).  Try *stars* or _underscores_.  This is admittedly a taste
thing, and I am getting used to it somewhat.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:28:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Whamiol burying

[email-masked] wrote:

> not once did e claim that the Whamiol was indeed Treasure.
> 
> If e had claimed the status of Treasure for the Whamiol.

HC's logic seems sound.  Is a CFJ required?  I only say this as
some officers need to know the status of the Whamiol.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:30:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Whamiol burying

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> As a public service, please describe the physical appearance of a
> Whamiol.  I was unaware that they were shiny.

The speaker's page has a rendering of a Whamiol under HC's player
record.

Malenkai
speaker

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:35:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 320 (IdiotBoy)

IdiotBoy has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 320
  Subject: Dilocation of the Little Lamb
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Nov 10, 1996, 00:37h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

More than one player may possess the Little Lamb simultaneously.

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:

>From Rule 1046, which governs the Little Lamb:  "Any player may claimpossession of the Little Lamb, which will remain in effect until another
player claims possession of the Little Lamb, or for one week, whichever
is longer."  Let's say that Player A claims possession of the Little
Lamb, then four days later Player B does.  This clause guarantees that
Player A's claim will remain in effect for at least one week, but this does
not preclude the effectiveness of Player B's claim.  Indeed, Player B has
claimed possession of the Little Lamb, and according to Rule 1046, this
claim will remain in effect for at least one week.

Note that this is one of those cases where possession and ownership are
very different.  No one _owns_ the Little Lamb -- I believe it possible
that many players might possess it.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:41:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 321 (IdiotBoy)

IdiotBoy, once again, has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 321
  Subject: Whamiol Treasure
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Nov 10, 1996, 00:43h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

As of the time of this posting, snowgod buried a Treasure that
consists of a Whamiol.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This looks like a strict/loose constructionalist sort of thing.  A
verdict of FALSE means that Habeous Corpus has his Whamiol back, a
verdict of TRUE means it is buried Treasure.  I quote snowgod's post:

> I am burying my Whamiol and creating the following treasure map:
> 
> For to see his Whamiol again,
> and hold it near his score,
> Habeous Corpus must transfer some cash,
> A$500 to be exact,
> to snowgod, the would be extortionist.
> 
> Do this and the Whamiols is buried no more.

Note that this has nothing to do with the discussion between myself and
Guy Fawkes as to whether the map posted must be genuine if it is in fact
deemed to be a Treasure.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 00:55:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I hope you will not be offended if I take this to the next practical step.

Of course not.

> Is the intent of the language of the statement in dispute from R720, as
> I've interpreted it, undesirable to you?

Yes.
 
> The intent being - if an entity is an Institution, then it is a political
> office with more than one Seat.
> Reasoning - that's just what Institutions happen to be, at the moment.

I am confused by Synod, for example, being a political office with more
than one seat.  Synod, to me, is a group of Churches.  A political office,
to me, is something for which there is a nomination, and election to
fill, after which the candidate who wins gets some privileges.  These
seem like different things.

The main problem is that political offices are filled by election.  I
simply do not parse filling a church by election.  That is the problem,
the difficult construction of the language aside.  I believe my amendment
preserves Synod and all other institutions, yet clarifies this
troublesome issue for me.
 
That is all it is really.  I admit to not really comprehending making
Synod a political office with more than one seat.  As speaker, I have
never announced the openings and solicited nominations.  Should I?

What does it mean to be a political office?  To me, it only means
the election/nomination machinery.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #342
*******************************