Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #460
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, January 17 1997       Volume 01 : Number 460

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:22:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Machine

  I assert that the Machine's truth is:

  IF AND ONLY IF today has a date made only by two different prime
numbers, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

  I've decided that I need to add having been ridiculed to my repertoire.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:52:36 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1632

> Proposal 1632
> Parents, Children, the Bees and the Gumball
> Calvin N Hobbes

While on the whole, I like this proposal, I do have one _small_
problem with it.

(and a few questions)
> 
> After chewing the gumball, the player must break it up into three pieces. He
> should keep one piece and find two recipients for the others by publicly
> posting: "I've got a chewy bit of gumball, will the following two players
> parent a child with me by biting a bit?" This message should then list the
> names of two players.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Once someone chews (not bites) the gumball, other players may begin courting
> to get a piece of the gumball by saying they would accept a piece. This
> courting must be done in the form of poetry. Trinkets can also be traded in
> exchange for one of the bits of gumball. Only the person who just chewed the
> gumball may give a bit to other players, nor can there be more than three
> bits of the gumball at any time.

What is the timing of these operations?  Does the chewer have a certain 
amount of time to do the offering?  Do the recipients of the 'bits'
have a deadline to acknowledge the offer?

> The player giving out the bits of gumball may give one to any player who
> said they would accept one. The Poet Laureate will always accept one, so one
> can always be given to him -- his poetry is just awesome and wonderful you
> just want to give him a bit of gumball. Players who would accept a bit of
> gumball are assumed to acknowledge transfer of the gumball and biting it once.

Here's another confusing part.  Players begin courting as soon as the
gumball is chewed, and then the chewer posts the two he wishes to
give the pieces to, and then they get to accept or not accept.

Does the chewer have to give bits to courters?  Can it only be offered
to courters, or can it be offered to anyone?  What happens when
one of the two offeree turns the offer down?  Is the above paragraph
_forcing_ the chewer to offer a bit to the Poet Laureate, or is it
still just an option of the chewer?  The assumption of acknowledgement
also unnerves me.  When is that supposed to be occurring?  When they
print their acceptance of the offer of the chewer?

Of course, that paragraph also contains the part I'm not sure about.
As the Poet Laureate, I'm worried that I will be called upon quite
a lot to become the Ackaparent of many Ackachildren, and what
duties and responsibilities that would entail.  Do you have nay ideas
for that, or were you going to wait to see what others would
propose?

> As soon as three different players have a bit of gumball, the Ackanomic
> Institute of Genetic Replication (AIGR) will take the pieces, and process
> the three into a whole gumball again. If the AIGR process the pieces, then
> the three players who had pieces become eligible parents together. These
> three players may each write a poem about the experience.

But do they have to?

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:06:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: No vacation

This is to let anyone who cares know that I shall be out of town until
Tuesday.  I am not going on vacation because it is such a short
period, but I will be even more out of touch than I usually am on
weekends.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:05:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

Red Barn babbled:
>   I assert that the Machine's truth is:
> 
>   IF AND ONLY IF today has a date made only by two different prime
> numbers, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> 
>   I've decided that I need to add having been ridiculed to my repertoire.

I've been waiting for a chance like this! :-)
Red Barn, nobody else in the history of Ackanomic has caused so much
bandwidth to be wasted in a single day as you have in your first 24 hours
in the game.  And this waste of bandwidth, like several other recent
attempts to guess the Truth, does not even come close to the Truth.

/dev/joe
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:15:47 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says

> 
> Lestrade has found phoebe's matchbox.
> 

I was walking, in a place that I will not name. There I happened upon a
matchbox. Opening the matchbox I heard a voice soft and clear, clearer
than any voice I heard before. I recoginzed the voice of Phoebe. I stood
by as if in a trance and heard the following words:

"Red skies at night - sailors delight.
 Red skies in the morning - tornado warning"

I listened intently as the voice went on.

"Except of course on the second tuesday, third wednesday or the third
day before the full moon; when the opposite is true." 

I stood for I know not how long, amazed by the wisdom of the words of
Phoebe. Then a sudden impulse to share these words with my fellow
Ackanomians, and a desire to hide the matchbox, overcame me, awakening
me from my trance.

I awoke to find a world changed, witchhunts and a great volume of e-mail
being the order of the day. Yet the message needed to be told,
containing the wisdom of the centuries, and I have told the message, to
you, my fellow Ackanomians.

Lestrade

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:25:19 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 119 and more... 

At 01:00 AM 17-01-97 -0900, Phil Ackley wrote:
>>Snowgod, are you _my_ evil twin?
>>
>>Calvin N Hobbes
>>Heretic Extraordinaire
>
>No, fellow heretic and reformed round earther, I am your good twin.
>ThinMan is my evil twin!  I believe Mohammed may be your evil twin, but
>only careful testing can determine that fact.

How do you like my proposal number 1633? It's dedicated to all the crazy
members of Acka among us. I like the "both are each other's evil twin"...   :)

If you are my good twin, does that mean I'm your evil twin or are we both
good? And if I'm more evil than you, and you are more evil than Thinman,
does that mean I'm also more evil than ThinMan? Is this property transitive?
Commutative? Reflexive?   :)

I think the Ackaphysicist should find an article that mentions an
evil-o-meter. And an evil-twin-o-meter. Or maybe the inventor can create
such things?

>Hey!  Do you waant to form an organization for people who enjoy getting
>burned and fhaving their proposal fail.  It could be lots of fun.  We
>cou;ld exclude everyone else, stir things up, declare ourselfs aa seperate
>entity and win internomic...

I do! Maybe not break off, but certainly get together as an organization and
rock the boat. Well, not really rock the boat, but paint the town certainly.
:)

It would have to be a very exclusive membership, of course. And plenty of
celebrations. We could also be one of Acka's foremost and best known
exports. As a team, we could export ourselves to other nomics to give them a
sample of Acka. Kind of like a traveling circus without the elephants.    :)

>Or maybe not.

I still like the idea...

Calvin N Hobbes
something or other extraordinaire

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:27:42 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ThinMan's prescription 

>ThinMan can be cured of snowgod's disease if and only if he succesfully
>authors a rule change that causes the end of Enlightenment.

Oh my! I'm in awe.
What a truely inspired idea!

I bow before you, who is so deserving of the title of church leader.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:44:18 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I'm begging, please, oh please... stop! 

Argh.

It's nice to see so *many* threads all dealing with things I really love to
keep in touch with (heretics, cfjs, cfcjs, new players, etc), but I think,
from the reddish splat on the wall above my computer, that my brain just
experienced a literal core dump.   :o

Not!

It's healthy to get on overdrive once in a while. If any officer needs a
hand dealing with the crazyness (Malenkai?) please, feel free to call on me
to help. I'm sure others would be ready to help too.

This has to be the most harfy week ever. Since this is also the last week of
Ackanomic's first year, I see a disturbing connection. Are we having "end of
the world" syndrome?

Anyway, I'll offer A$40 to the poet laureate for a poem concerning the
events of the last week in Acka's first year. Should be a crazy, harfy poem
reflecting the crazy harfy events of the week. Since it ain't over yet, I'll
wait of course. Still gives us time to make this a memorable week!

Calvin N Hobbes
ready to celebrate the event

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:50:29 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (Mentor: snowgod) 

>He has chosen nietzsche as his Ackanomic name.

This is fantastic. As some of you know, Nietzsche is one of my favorite
philosophers. And just in time for the celebrations too. Is spring always
like this? It seems we've just had half a dozen new players sign up in a
matter of weeks, if not days.

Too bad they won't qualify to have parents.   [grin]

Calvin "who's getting the popcorn?" Hobbes
who is getting to that post by our beloved poet about the parent rule

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:41:13 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1632 

Oh, btw, I note that I didn't keep silent so the SOS against me is annulled
and the witch hunt begins again. Sorry Malenkai, I have two messages coming
up that are rather important.

I'll try and grab the alter by the horns though, so don't worry about it,
wait a few hours (you officially have 3 days).

At 02:52 PM 17-01-97 -0800, fnord wrote:
>> Proposal 1632
>> Parents, Children, the Bees and the Gumball
>> Calvin N Hobbes
>
>While on the whole, I like this proposal, I do have one _small_
>problem with it.

Only one? I took a long time to write it, but I was expecting a lot of
problems still.

>(and a few questions)

Oh, I see.   :)

>What is the timing of these operations?  Does the chewer have a certain 
>amount of time to do the offering?  Do the recipients of the 'bits'
>have a deadline to acknowledge the offer?

Ok, the idea of the rule is to make everything simple for everyone. The
events happen this way:
1- Someone makes a legitimate claim of chewing the gumball
2- In the same message, or soon after, the person states his two prefered
choices for "mates".
3- After someone legally chews the gumball, anyone can begin courting
4- The player who chewed the gumball gives a pieces to two people.
5- If 4 occured within the time allowed, they can be parents, otherwise not.
6- In all cases, the gumball is made whole again and ready for chewing.

Note that the gumball owner can only give bits to people who have courted or
have announced they would accept to bite a bit. Players who have not chewed
the gumball don't have much to do, just state whether they would accept
being parents. Of course, players are free to invest as much time as they
want in courting. The player's first choices shouldn't have to much to do
though.

Once the player gives away the bits, that's it, it's over. The recipients
already stated their willingness to get it, so no other acknowledgement is
needed. Note that they don't even have to say they will bite the gum (that's
a private undertaking), it is assumed to be done.

>> The player giving out the bits of gumball may give one to any player who
>> said they would accept one. The Poet Laureate will always accept one, so one
>> can always be given to him -- his poetry is just awesome and wonderful you
>> just want to give him a bit of gumball. Players who would accept a bit of
>> gumball are assumed to acknowledge transfer of the gumball and biting it
once.
>
>Here's another confusing part.  Players begin courting as soon as the
>gumball is chewed, and then the chewer posts the two he wishes to
>give the pieces to, and then they get to accept or not accept.

The person chewing *must* post two first choices, but may acccept anyone.
And yes, theoretically, if the player does not make his choices know as soon
as he chews, then player can begin courting, probably influence the first
choices. That's good I think.

And as you say, the chewer decides who gets the bits ultimately. he may be
influenced, but the choice  is his and his only.

>Does the chewer have to give bits to courters?

Not _have_ to, but it is an option. Afterall, if your choices said no, and
some courter offers you a A$1000 trinket of a gold ring with diamond... well....

>Can it only be offered
>to courters, or can it be offered to anyone?

Only to people who state they would accept a bit. This implies they are
courting. Courting can be a very stoical, very spartan affair if one wants
to. Courting could be just saying "I'd bite". If someone doesn't say they
would bite, then a bit cannot be given to them. Except for the poet --
everyone wants his genes to dominate the gene pool.     :)

>  What happens when
>one of the two offeree turns the offer down? Is the above paragraph
>_forcing_ the chewer to offer a bit to the Poet Laureate, or is it
>still just an option of the chewer?

It is an option yes, not forced, just in case the chewer is desperate for
children. I though it'd be nice to have a leader of the pack so to speak. A
harem master.   :)   Note also that every player can take on any role, and
be elligible as a parent either as the chewer or as the chosen courter. Make
for a more versatile, interesting situation.

>  The assumption of acknowledgement
>also unnerves me.  When is that supposed to be occurring?  When they
>print their acceptance of the offer of the chewer?

If someone says they would accept a bit, then they are assumed to
acknowledge a bit should one be given to them. It makes sense, and isn't
something to be afraid of. Of course, the poet can always be picked, that's
true, and assumed to accept.   :)

>Of course, that paragraph also contains the part I'm not sure about.
>As the Poet Laureate, I'm worried that I will be called upon quite
>a lot to become the Ackaparent of many Ackachildren, and what
>duties and responsibilities that would entail.  Do you have nay ideas
>for that, or were you going to wait to see what others would
>propose?

Worried about all those potential renegade, delinquent children and you
being dragged to court with them when they get their first CFCJ?    :)
This is just off the top of my head, of course. I was actually thinking only
good things would happen to the parents. But I can be convinced otherwise,
of course.  [grin]

Anyway, there should be plenty of players willing to be parents out there,
so I don't think you'll be called upon to frequently. Call it a hazard of
the trade.    :)

>> As soon as three different players have a bit of gumball, the Ackanomic
>> Institute of Genetic Replication (AIGR) will take the pieces, and process
>> the three into a whole gumball again. If the AIGR process the pieces, then
>> the three players who had pieces become eligible parents together. These
>> three players may each write a poem about the experience.
>
>But do they have to?

Nope, they "may" write one, but certainly don't have to. They have that as
an option. Those poems should be recorded by the Poet though, along with others.

Also to keep in mind is that Thursday chewers have less time to become
parents than do Wednesday chewers, making it harder. I think that makes it
all more interesting. I expect a small number of cases when players won't
qualify as parent. Makes sense.

Basically, the work load this creates is very small. The player doing the
chewing has all the work to do. If he wasn't prepared to handle it, then he
should have known better than to fool around with the gumball.   :)

The registrar will have to keep track of parents, but that should be
straight forward enough. Very straight forward. If the registrar sees this
as a problem, I'd like to know so I can fix it actually.

As for rule detailing the relationship between parents and children, it will
be up to us to figure that out. There are numerous fun options I'm sure.

When I was writing the prop, I knew that I was having problems making
everything hold together and still make sense in a clear way. I'm not sure
it's perfectly clear, or perfectly right.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:40:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm begging, please, oh please... stop!

T Joffrain wrote:

> It's healthy to get on overdrive once in a while. If any officer needs a
> hand dealing with the crazyness (Malenkai?) please, feel free to call on me
> to help. I'm sure others would be ready to help too.

Thank you.  

First of all, I will ask for the third time for voters to indicate the
Hearing they are voting in, or at least quote the full e-mail as I have
asked.  If you cannot offer that tiny ounce of respect, I do not know what
else to say.  Its really not that hard to do:  Just reply to the e-mail,
and quote the entire text, less your vote.  If your e-mail client does
not have Reply-To, then just put the name of the alledged heretic in the
subject line. 

Yes, you can argue that the rules allow you to ignore such requests,
and indeed they do.  However, I have no choice but to ignore posts that
say "BURN THE WITCH!", with a subject line of  "Acka: Hearing", and
suffer the inevitable CFCJ for making mistakes.  I'm not trying to be
anal about it; if someone has a suggestion for tabulating such posts,
let me know.

To those who have made an effort to make your posts unambiguous, and you
know who you are, I appreciate it.

Another request:  Please do not attempt to number CFCJs when submitting 
them.  I use the subject line of the e-mails to keep my folders organized,
and the submissions with numbers in them make it harder for me to visually
seperate the processed CFCJs from the unprocessed ones.

Malenkai
who doesn't understand the point of a suggested penalty of 7 days in
Gaol, a penalty which has only been exceeded once, on top of all this

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 01:43:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Nomic Holidays

I was browsing Pumpkin Patch Nomic's rules and found out something very
curious:
M-419 "TITO's Birthday"

(A) January 22 of each year shall be an offical and joyous holiday in
the Pumpkin Patch and it shall be called "TITO's Birthday" and shall be
set aside for the remembrance and celebration of the creation of the
Patch's first letter creature.

(this is not the entire rule)

Niccolo Flychuck
President

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:03:39 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Challenge to a duel! (Red Barn) 

Red Barn

You are hereby challenged to a duel by our most magnificent and wondrous of
players, snowgod, Founder of the Church of the Markovian Dream, member and
swinger of the (none yet) party, four time Heretic, expert in Internomic
Matter, Ambassador, etc, etc. for having made him stay up late and laugh so
hard and so long that he no longer had the time to deal with Most Important
Internomic Correspondence that foreign dignitaries had sent to him by
Special Courier. That may have been overlooked, but the attempting to steal
snowgod's thunder as the foremost bandwidth waster of all time, cannot ever
be. Nor can you shrink from being responsible for the recent and disturbing
outbreak of snowgod's disease!

Red Barn, you stand challenged!

Calvin N Hobbes
second to snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:05:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Invoking R 1315

As a priest of the Church of the Markovian Dream, I am invoking R 1315
and taking the following actions:

I am theatening to burn Red Barn, snowgod, Calvin N Hobbes, Jammer,
Bascule and Red Barn again, and any other player for which there is
an outstanding witchhunt.

I am granting all said players a "Sanctuary of Salvation", in accordance
with paragraph 1 of the rule.  Note that the SOS is not voluntary, the
clause is clear that the discretion is with the priest:

> If a player is declared a Heretic or otherwise threatened to be burned,
> then any priest can grant the player a "Sanctuary Of Salvation", even
> if the priest is the player herself, by making a public  statement to
> that effect. 

The second paragraph of the rule says:

> That player is said to have taken refuge in solemn meditation and may
> not send any public messages for 27 hours. Any witchhunt against the
> player is canceled.

According to the first sentence of this passage, it is now against the
rules of this nomic for any of the mentioned players to make a public post
until 27 hours pass.  I note that 3 of our players have already broken
this rule when Calvin N Hobbes took similar action.  However, I do not
know if that is a qualifying instance, as it is not clear whether the
players were "threatened to be burned" in that instance.  It is clear that
they have not been declared Heretics, only alledged Heretics.

Even if said players do break the rules, the third paragraph says:

> If the player breaks her vows of silence, then the SOS is annulled and
> all proceedings (as Heretic) against the player can resume.

I note the keyword "can".  They will not resume, though.

Malenkai
loophole surfer (in good fun)

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:16:31 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Challenge to a duel! (Breadbox) 

Breadbox, yea Heretic-Sympathizer

It is my pleasure, as one of the foremost leaders in Hereticism, to inform
you that the great Robert Sevin, Prima Player, member of the Harf Party,
respected long time Speaker and President, Orator of the highest magnitude,
etc, etc. has challenged you to a duel. You have encouraged players to hold
back from calling Witch Hunts, which are Blessed and Most Holy Events. All
players should be dedicated to rooting out Heresy wherever it may be found!
There are Heretics everywhere! All around us! We must launch a Holy Crusade
and War against them! Your attempts to undermine and subvert this process
has endangered the work of the Glorious Warriors who have done so much to
wipe out the Heresy. Prepare your self!

Breadbox, you stand challenged!

Calvin N Hobbes
second to Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:20:02 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 1315 

>Even if said players do break the rules, the third paragraph says:
>
>> If the player breaks her vows of silence, then the SOS is annulled and
>> all proceedings (as Heretic) against the player can resume.
>
>I note the keyword "can".  They will not resume, though.
>
>Malenkai
>loophole surfer (in good fun)

Wow. One heck of a loophole surfer!
Hail Malenkai 10000 times, nay, ten thousand 10000 times!

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:21:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 124 (Bascule)

Bascule has been chosen.

Red Barn -20 CFCJ 124

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 124
  Subject:  Illegal CFCJ
Initiator:  Red Barn
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:20 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

  Red Barn has committed a crime.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Red Barn attempted, on Jan 16, 1997, at 21:59, to submit as a CFCJ
something which was in fact not one.
  This was, depending upon one's view, either illegal or invalid.
  If it was illegal, it was a crime.
  If it was invalid it was impermissible and the attempt to do it
was therefore a crime.
  It could not have been legal, because if so it was a permitted and
unregulated action.  But it attempts to be an action regulated by one of
the rules, and therefore is regulated by the rules.
  Therefore, Red Barn has committed a crime.

Suggested penalty:

  A FINE of A$10 payable by Player Red Barn to the Treasury.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:23:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 125 (Bascule)

Bascule [sic] has been chosen.

Red Barn -20 CFCJ 125

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 125
  Subject:  Illegal CFCJ (deja vu all over again)
Initiator:  Red Barn
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:23 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Red Barn has committed a crime.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Red Barn attempted, on Jan 16, 1997, at 21:59, to submit as a CFCJ
something which was in fact not one.
  This was, depending upon one's view, either illegal or invalid.
  If it was illegal, it was a crime.
  If it was invalid it was impermissible and the attempt to do it was
therefore a crime.
  It could not have been legal, because if so it was a permitted and
unregulated action.  But it attempts to be an action regulated by one of
the rules, and therefore is regulated by the rules.
  Therefore, Red Barn has committed a crime.

Suggested penalty:

  A FINE of A$10 payable by Player Red Barn to the Treasury.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:34:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 330 (Swann)

Swann has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 330
  Subject: CFCJ 119 revisited
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:32h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

  The first complaint made by Red Barn was legitimately exercised for the
purposes of R1448.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  R1448 refers to a player "legitimately exercising this ability [to
complain]".  It is not clearly defined what precisely constitutes
legitimately exercising the ability.  Presumably, it can be defined as
publicly posting a legitimate complaint.  Nor is a legitimate complaint
defined.  However, R1448 says, on line 6 of paragraph one:

In order for this complaint to have the effects described in this rule,...

  Therefore, it can be assumed that a legitimate complaint is, rather than
a complaint having any specific effects, merely a complaint complying with
the rules.
  Paragraph one, lines 1-4, read:

  Any new player of Ackanomic (defined, for these purposes, as a player
who has been a player of Ackanomic for less than 31 days) that is playing
Ackanomic for the first time (i.e. they have only joined the game of
Ackanomic once) may publicly complain when they lose any points or
currency. ...

  Red Barn submitted an entity of ambiguous type to the Clerk of the
Court, who treated it as a CFCJ until it was determined not to be.

  Rule 710 states:
  1) A "court fee" of A$20 will be paid by the player making the CFCJ, to
the Treasury.

  I submit that any action labelled as a CFCJ and treated as such by the
Clerk of the Court incurs such a fee, because the action was treated as a
CFCJ beyond the point at which such a fee would be incurred.

  Therefore Red Barn paid A$20 to the court, and the complaint in question
was legitimate.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:41:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 330 (Swann)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call For Judgement 330

> Statement:
> 
>   The first complaint made by Red Barn was legitimately exercised for the
> purposes of R1448.
> 
> Red Barn's Reasoning:

[...]

>   Red Barn submitted an entity of ambiguous type to the Clerk of the
> Court, who treated it as a CFCJ until it was determined not to be.

This statement from the initiator is FALSE.  I treated it as an ambiguous
entity from the outset.  In acka parlance, in one thread of the game
state it was a CFCJ, in another it was not.  Moreover, I promply (as
promtly as could reasonably be expected under the circumstances), issued
a CFJ [327] to collapse the thread split, indicating in that CFJ that 
I believed it to *not* be a CFCJ.  As factual evidence (and also qv
CFJ 327), I quote my text from the CFCJ 119 distribution:

> The following was submitted labelled as a CFCJ, yet it does not
> comply with R 710 on at least 2 counts.  I'll let the justice system
> sort this one out, I just work here :)

The justice system promptly sorted it out.  I ask the Judge to consider
this reasoning in rendering a decision of FALSE on CFJ 330.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:53:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 123 (Swann)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Swann has been chosen.  Again this could possibly be disqualified on
> technical grounds.

> Call for Criminal Judgement 123

> Statement:
> 
>   Bascule, Jammer, Red Barn and Calvin N Hobbes have broken the rules.

In accordance with CFJ 327, and rather than issue another CFJ, I am
declaring this (CFCJ 123) not a valid CFCJ as well.  This is not a power
of fiat I have, but I believe the rules and game custom will support the
legality of this action (in other words, I'm not voiding this CFCJ, it
is Platonically void, and I'm just reporting that fact).

If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to submit the appropriate
CFJ.  Otherwise, consider CFCJ 123 void.

I am simply trying to simlify the many threads of the game state.  I
apologize for not doing this from the outset, I was a bit confused at the
time :)

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:27:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (snowgod)

snowgod has found phoebe's matchbox

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:10:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFCJ's 

>In that case, perhaps you would care to retract the duplicates?
>
>ThinMan

I would retract the duplicates, but before I realized it was a problem,
/dev/joe jusdged the second one invalid.  Does that mean the first is also
invalid?

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:16:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine 

>I've been waiting for a chance like this! :-)
>Red Barn, nobody else in the history of Ackanomic has caused so much
>bandwidth to be wasted in a single day as you have in your first 24 hours
>in the game.  And this waste of bandwidth, like several other recent
>attempts to guess the Truth, does not even come close to the Truth.
>
>/dev/joe
>Scholar of *ping*

Bravo! :)

snowgod
going to reccomend /dev/joe's ridicule of Red Barn for a silver moon!

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:26:03 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm begging, please, oh please... stop! 

>Malenkai
>who doesn't understand the point of a suggested penalty of 7 days in
>Gaol, a penalty which has only been exceeded once, on top of all this

Oh, A$7 for the forhead, and then I just kept going with the seven thing.

It seems like a good number :)

snowgod
who knows that unless the defendant is me, the judges will go easy on you :)

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:40:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ's

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> >In that case, perhaps you would care to retract the duplicates?
> >
> >ThinMan
> 
> I would retract the duplicates, but before I realized it was a problem,
> /dev/joe jusdged the second one invalid.  Does that mean the first is also
> invalid?

No.  Had the first one been judged invalid, however, or been retracted,
etc, the second one would have been.  The Gaol sentence is invalid,
though, or at least pedantically unreasonable.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:44:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1634

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1634
> Saaramaa
> Malenkai

Jan 17 21:47 EST: -2 Malenkai: retracting proposal 1634

I just needed the title in the proposal archive for future use.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:52:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

All the running hearings should now be on the current events
page, in case it is determined that the R 1315 invocations do not
work.  The CotC page is finally updated as well.

As for the Crazy French-Scotsman thing, I have yet to detect a
successful application of the rule, despite the attempts, but it
is easy for me to miss stuff.  Can anyone else confirm a successful
attempt?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:23:33 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 126 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has been chosen.

Malenkai -20 CFCJ 126

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 126
  Subject:  Breaking the silence
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jan 17, 1997, 22:23 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

snowgod has committed a Crime.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Feeling left out of the CFCJ party, I submit this because it interests
me in moving towards defining what it means to "break the rules".  This
sort of thing interests me, anyway.

On Friday, Jan 17th, at 19:05, I granted snowgod a "Sanctuary of Silence"
in accordance with R 1315.  I do not believe there can be any dispute as
to whether or not that was done successfully.

I quote the second paragraph of R 1315:

> That player is said to have taken refuge in solemn meditation and may
> not send any public messages for 27 hours. Any witchhunt against the
> player is canceled.

On Friday, Jan 17th, at 20:16, snowgod made a public post praising 
/dev/joe's ridicule of Red Barn in regards to the Machine that goes 
*ping*.  Rather than clutter this with e-mail headers, it can be
verified that such a post was made by checking the ftp archives on
wilma, if you want.

The passage above is clear.  The player under SOS may not send any 
public messages, and thus snowgod broke the rules by doing so.  So,
in breaking the rules, we have a Felony per R 713, and a crime, thus
a verdict of TRUE is indicated.

Or is it?  R 1315 goes on to say:

> If the player breaks her vows of silence, then the SOS is annulled and
> all proceedings (as Heretic) against the player can resume.

There seem to be 2 possibilities:

Does this allow the player to break this rule, and thus in breaking the
silence clause, they really aren't breaking the rules, because a 
penalty is defined here? 

or

Is this an additional penalty, over and above criminal penalties, for
breaking the rule?

At the time of CFCJ 102, it was discussed that because the rule in
question had a penalty defined for violation, no additional penalties
could be imposed.  However, that reasoning never become part of explicit
or implicit game custom, it was just discussion.

I certainly find the second interpretation above much more satisifying;
R 713 is clear that a crime has been committed if the rules have been 
broken.  The only way out of it to get to the first interpretation
is to somehow allow that the rules were not actually broken, despite
the rather bold:

> [the player] may not send any public messages for 27 hours.

It comes down to:  

You may not do X, but if you do, Y happens to you. vs
You may not do X.

The second one really renders to: 
You may not do X [but if you do, CFCJ penalties shall apply]

The fact that one sort of penalty is in another rule, and the 'Y'
penalty is in the same rule should not matter.

Suggested penalty:

  A FINE of A$20 payable by Player snowgod to Malenkai.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:33:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 126 Verdict

CFJ 126 has been judged TRUE.

Malenkai +20 CFCJ 126
snowgod -20

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 126
  Subject:  Breaking the silence
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jan 17, 1997, 22:23 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

snowgod has committed a Crime.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Feeling left out of the CFCJ party, I submit this because it interests
me in moving towards defining what it means to "break the rules".  This
sort of thing interests me, anyway.

On Friday, Jan 17th, at 19:05, I granted snowgod a "Sanctuary of Silence"
in accordance with R 1315.  I do not believe there can be any dispute as
to whether or not that was done successfully.

I quote the second paragraph of R 1315:

> That player is said to have taken refuge in solemn meditation and may
> not send any public messages for 27 hours. Any witchhunt against the
> player is canceled.

On Friday, Jan 17th, at 20:16, snowgod made a public post praising
/dev/joe's ridicule of Red Barn in regards to the Machine that goes
*ping*.  Rather than clutter this with e-mail headers, it can be
verified that such a post was made by checking the ftp archives on
wilma, if you want.

The passage above is clear.  The player under SOS may not send any
public messages, and thus snowgod broke the rules by doing so.  So,
in breaking the rules, we have a Felony per R 713, and a crime, thus
a verdict of TRUE is indicated.

Or is it?  R 1315 goes on to say:

> If the player breaks her vows of silence, then the SOS is annulled and
> all proceedings (as Heretic) against the player can resume.

There seem to be 2 possibilities:

Does this allow the player to break this rule, and thus in breaking the
silence clause, they really aren't breaking the rules, because a
penalty is defined here?

or

Is this an additional penalty, over and above criminal penalties, for
breaking the rule?

At the time of CFCJ 102, it was discussed that because the rule in
question had a penalty defined for violation, no additional penalties
could be imposed.  However, that reasoning never become part of explicit
or implicit game custom, it was just discussion.

I certainly find the second interpretation above much more satisifying;
R 713 is clear that a crime has been committed if the rules have been
broken.  The only way out of it to get to the first interpretation
is to somehow allow that the rules were not actually broken, despite
the rather bold:

> [the player] may not send any public messages for 27 hours.

It comes down to:

You may not do X, but if you do, Y happens to you. vs
You may not do X.

The second one really renders to:
You may not do X [but if you do, CFCJ penalties shall apply]

The fact that one sort of penalty is in another rule, and the 'Y'
penalty is in the same rule should not matter.

Suggested penalty:

  A FINE of A$20 payable by Player snowgod to Malenkai.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Mohammed's Crime Bill set up a framework for solving these sorts of
situations.

I agree that Malenkai successfully granted snowgod a Sanctuary of Silence
and that this Sanctuary was still in effect when snowgod sent the message
in question.

Rule 1315 says, in part:

   That player is said to have taken refuge in solemn meditation and may
   not send any public messages for 27 hours. Any witchhunt against the
   player is canceled.

Rule 713 says, in part:

   To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime.
   An action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by contrast,
   impossible.  However, an attempt to commit such an action is a Crime
   [even though the action itself does not occur].

Rule 1315's "may not send any public message" is a statement that an
action is impermissible (as opposed to illegal).  Thus, Rule 713 says
it is *impossible* for snowgod to send a public message during
his sanctuary of silence.

However, Rule 372 says:

A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to all
registered Players who subscribe to the official mailing list, and the
subject line contains either "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:"

snowgod's message in question was sent to the main mailing list,
and had the required subject line.  So Rule 372 says snowgod did
send a public message.

This is a conflict between rules 372 and 713, and neither rule claims
or defers precedence, so rule 372 wins.  Thus, that message was a public
message.  However, by the last above quoted sentence Rule 713, the
attempt to send the public message was a Crime.  Thus, the CFCJ is TRUE.

However, rule 1315 has an additional stipulation:

   If the player breaks her vows of silence, then the SOS is annulled and
   all proceedings (as Heretic) against the player can resume.

The only meaningful interpretations of the above are that if the player
manages to send, or possibly simply attempts to send (both cases are
true here) a public message, the witchhunt continues where it left off.

This does not claim to make the sending of a public message no longer be
a crime, or no longer be impermissible.  In Malenkai's terms, this is an
additional penalty for breaking the rule.

Actual penalty:

The rules state that a penalty of a FINE may only be paid to the Treasury.
I think what Malenkai wanted is to get his court fee back:
A TRANSFERENCE of A$20 from snowgod to Malenkai.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #460
*******************************