Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #431
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, December 31 1996      Volume 01 : Number 431

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

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:46:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 325 Verdict

CFJ 325 was judged FALSE.  CnH receives the Chartreuse Goose.  Thx to
snowgod for submitting the verdict in its final format.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Call For Judgement 325
  Subject: Trinket Paradox
Initiator: Calvin N Hobbes
    Judge: snowgod (selected Dec 23, 1996, 12:24h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Trinket creation (R506/2) and donation to the treasury (R505/8 part VI)
causes a paradox since this creates Ackadollars when that number should be
constant (R505/8 Part III).

Calvin N Hobbes's Reasoning:

>From Rule 505/8 (Treasury and AckaDollars), part III, "Hard Currency",
>thefollowing two things to note. First that it is not allowed to createAckadollars and second that their total number is to be $75000. Therefore it
must be that there should be always A$75000 in Ackanomic.

I quote:

>III. Hard Currency:
>
>     AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed. This Rule
>has precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$.
>  [...] The total number of A$ shall always be 75,000.

Let us consider also, from Rule 505/8, part VI, "Donation", the following:

>     VI. Donation:
>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity
>they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are
>doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is converted into its value in
>A$ upon transferrence to the Treasury.

The result of the action is that when a trinket is donated to the Treasury,
it is converted into its value in Ackadollars, as the rule says. In other
words, it is the value in Ackadollars that is donated to the Treasury, not
the Trinket itself.

In Rule 506/2, "Trinkets", second paragraph:

>     A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its
>name, description, and value, and by paying its announced
>value to the Treasury.

As an example, let us presume that we create a trinket worth A$1, and that
this action is legal (it would require only that we have A$1 in our
account). Then, the treasury is given this A$1 from the account, as per
R506/2. Now if we donate this trinket to the treasury as per R505/8, its
value, A$1 is donated to the treasury. While our account has gone down by
A$1, the treasury now has A$2 more than before: one from our account, one
from the trinket donation -- A$1 has been created.

Since Ackadollars cannot be created, but we have just done so... Paradox,
and paradox win in accordance with R219 as defined in R219 if ruled TRUE.

snowgod's Reasoning:

The initiator's reasoning is valid, but only to a point.  It seems clear that
R505/8 (Section VI) does indeed cause the creation of A$ in excess of the
A$75,000 limit (Section III).  Though this previously would have
constituted a paradox, R210 is now quite clear on this matter:

     If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and
     the rule doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the
     statement which appears later in the rule takes precedence.

This is the case in this 'paradox' so I am returning a judgement of FALSE
on the matter of CFJ 325.

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

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:19:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Breadbox)

> > The current Ghost word is qat.  It is Breadbox's turn.

breadbox challenges in the second sense. Show me a word containing "qat".

> > Turn order
> > ----------
> > Robert Sevin
> > snowgod
> > Jammer
> > breadbox
> > Lestrade

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

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:20:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Breadbox)

John Martin Lotz wrote to me privately:

> > breadbox challenges in the second sense. Show me a word containing "qat".
> >
> Qatari

I could not find 'qatari' in either official dictionary.  I am construing
'the most recent player to play has three days to supply a word containing
the ghost word' from the rules to imply that once a word is supplied,
the three day period is over (basically because of game custom, this is
how we did it last time).

I am judging this protest valid.

In addition to the questionably worded clause above, the rules are
completely silent as to how to proceed if the second sort of protest
is judged valid.  I suppose they should proceed like the first sort
of protest, Jammer is removed from the game, the ghost word is destroyed,
and it is breadbox's turn.

there is no ghost word.  It is breadbox's turn.

Turn order
- ----------
> > Robert Sevin
> > snowgod
> > breadbox
> > Lestrade

Malenkai
referee

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

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:56:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Lestrade)

> there is no ghost word.  It is breadbox's turn.

The Ghost Word is "t".

> Turn order
> ----------
> Robert Sevin
> snowgod
> breadbox
> Lestrade

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #431
*******************************