Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #473
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, January 22 1997      Volume 01 : Number 473

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:18:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1632

This proposal turns my stomach.

- --Mohammed
:oP

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:22:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 333 Verdict

> Call For Judgement 333

> snowgod's reasoning:

[...]

> Also, though it is legal to impliment step 4 of the festivities at any
> time, I urge the officer in charge of implimentation to give a fair
> chance to every player to wish happy birthday greeting to ackanomic.
> Perhaps 24 hours of after the start of the holiday would be a good time?

That would be 12:00 Jan 23, leaving the prez no time for the speech, and
requiring the prez to be on-line at that time.  Due to the fact I will
be attending a seminar in another state tomorrow, which will require me
to get up 2 hours earlier than normal, and prohibit me from being on-line,
I will have to choice to distribute the boons around 00:00 Jan 23rd.

Also, due to the volume, I will be using my trusty physical dice, as
much as I would like to use the dice server.

Malenkai
OICoRT

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:26:35 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1662

Proposal 1662
Bad Pointer Reference
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest Proposal.

Amend Rule 1319 so that the number 729, found in its last paragraph, is 
changed to 1307.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:26:37 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1663

Proposal 1663
Otzma Card of type Scientist for a Day
Guy Fawkes

Create a new rule, a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite, with text as 
follows.

A Card of this type may be played only in the public forum.  A player who 
does so pays A$20.

In the message in which a player states he is playing a card of this 
type, he may also include exactly one collection of text which he would 
like to see as a new Blueprint.  This text becomes a new Brueprint in the 
Blueprint Archive; this Blueprint is said to be created by the player who 
played the Scientist for a Day Otzma Card.

If at least 5 active players, or 20% of the active players, whichever is 
greater, publically protest this Blueprint within 3 days of its creation, 
it is destroyed, and its creator loses 10 points.

Counter-Action:  Any Blueprint created by the use of the countered 
Scientist for a Day Card is destroyed. 

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:26:38 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1664

Proposal 1664
Ethics in Duels
Lestrade

Ethics in Duels
Lestrade (John Duncan)

This is a Modest Proposal

Change Rule 1215 Duels, # 2) 4th  paragraph from

"The Game or Contest (hereafter called Contest) chosen for the Duel must
be one accepted for listing (or listed) on the Games & Contests web
page. Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players and have
definative rules for determining a winner."

to 

"The Game or Contest (hereafter called Contest) chosen for the Duel must
be one accepted for listing (or listed) on the Games & Contests web
page. Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players and have
definative rules for determining a winner. If the contest calls for a
vote of the whole of Ackanomic, then the duelists and their seconds are
ineligible to vote in the contest." 

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:29:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  RFC Tammany reform

RFC Tammany Reform

[ I believe this will allow me to automate the Tammany Bribing
process.  I really want to get that done soon so that I might be able
to fully automate proposal finalization.  Please vote YES, barring
unforseen bugs in this revision. ]

[ This also removes the SILENT option.  Objections?  (I am not sure it
has ever been used.) ]

Rule 315/10 ("Tammany") is amended to read, in full:
- ---
Tammany is a unique entity capable of cating one vote on each
Proposal.  Tammany only votes on Proposals as specified by this Rule.

A statement sent to the Tabulator is a Tammany Bribe if, and only if, it
conveys the following information:

    a) the Proposal number of a Proposal that has not yet come to
	resolution.

    b) an amount of currency from 5 to 25 A$s, evenly divisible by A$5.

    c) a Desired Vote of either YES or NO.

    d) the intent of the sender of the message to bribe Tammany the
	amount specified, in order to vote in the manner specified on
	the Proposal specified.

Each Player may submit a maximum of one valid Bribe per Proposal.
Should more than one Bribe be submitted by a Player for a given
Proposal, the Bribe received most recently by the Tabulator shall be
deemed the sole valid Bribe by the Player for that Proposal, with all
others being disregarded.

Before the voting results for a given Proposal are announced, the
Tabulator has the Duty of determining whether and how Tammany will
vote on this Proposal, based upon the valid Tammany Bribes for that
Proposal and the specifications below in this Rule.  Tammany's vote
and all Tammany Bribes pertaining to a Proposal shall be reported
along with the voting results for the Proposal.

Each Player who submitted a Tammany Bribe for a Proposal that is about
to be resolved shall have the designated amount of currency deducted
from his account.  In the case that this would result in a negative
currency balance for a Player, his entire Bribe is disregarded.

The Tabulator shall not intentionally examine the text of any Tammany
Bribe until the this rule makes it eir Duty to do so.  If he should
inadvertently do so, he should, as a matter of ethics, avoid allowing
this foreknowledge to influence his game actions in any way.

Tammany shall vote YES on a Proposal if and only if the total amount
of currency associated with Tammany Bribes that had a Desired Vote of
YES is greater than the total amount of currency associated with
Tammany Bribes that had a Desired Vote of NO.

Tammany shall vote NO on a Proposal if and only if the total amount of
currency associated with Tammany Bribes that had a Desired Vote of NO
is greater than the total amount of currency associated with Tammany
Bribes that had a Desired Vote of YES.
- ---

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:36:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1662

> Proposal 1662

> Amend Rule 1319 so that the number 729, found in its last paragraph, is
> changed to 1307.

This would seem to be a null proposal.  From P 1618, which was accepted:

> renumber R 1344, "Round Earth Restoration Society" to 1319

[...]

> Amend R 1319 to replace all occurrances of "729" with "1307".

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:39:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  strange bot occurences

The bot has once again skipped a number.  There is no proposal numbered 
1655.

I would do something to solve the rule conflicts building up due to 
this... but I see nothing to do.  :o(

Malenkai, if you wish to submit a CFJ on this, feel free. I don't know 
what I should ask for.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:39:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  RFC Tammany reform

Jason Orendorff wrote:

> [ This also removes the SILENT option.  Objections?  (I am not sure it
> has ever been used.) ]

It has been used, and I personally would like to keep it.

>     b) an amount of currency from 5 to 25 A$s, evenly divisible by A$5.

I was thinking of having inflation kick in here.  How about 25 to 125?

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 04:46:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1664

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1664
> Ethics in Duels
> Lestrade
> 
> 
> Ethics in Duels
> Lestrade (John Duncan)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal
> 
> Change Rule 1215 Duels, # 2) 4th  paragraph from
> 
> "The Game or Contest (hereafter called Contest) chosen for the Duel must
> be one accepted for listing (or listed) on the Games & Contests web
> page. Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players and have
> definative rules for determining a winner."

Currently there is a proposal in the queue that attempts to ammend the
above paragraph and may render this proposal ineffective.

> 
> to 
> 
> "The Game or Contest (hereafter called Contest) chosen for the Duel must
> be one accepted for listing (or listed) on the Games & Contests web
> page. Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players and have
> definative rules for determining a winner. If the contest calls for a
> vote of the whole of Ackanomic, then the duelists and their seconds are
> ineligible to vote in the contest." 
>
Why? 
There's two for each side, they compensate one another. One assumes that
each Duelist votes for eirself, and Seconds usually vote for eir Duelists,
so this has no effect on the results.

Should election candidates be barred from voting in their own elections?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:51:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  RFC Tammany reform

>> [ This also removes the SILENT option.  Objections?  (I am not sure it
>> has ever been used.) ]
> 
> It has been used, and I personally would like to keep it.

Perhaps the Present vote could be used to fill that role?

> >     b) an amount of currency from 5 to 25 A$s, evenly divisible by A$5.
> 
> I was thinking of having inflation kick in here.  How about 25 to 125?

If not higher.

b

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:50:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  strange bot occurences

Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Malenkai, if you wish to submit a CFJ on this, feel free. I don't know
> what I should ask for.

I would only submit one because I find the princple of law surrounding
retractable/non-retractable actions interesting.  The question that would
be before the Court is a Platonic one: 

a) did the proposals get distributed as required by the rules, and are
they simply mis-labelled in the distribution, requiring the voters
to compensate; 

b) or, is a crime being committed, but they are numbered as distributed
anyway;

c) or, is a crime being committed and anything after the first incorrectly
numbered one not actually proposals, just gizz in the system, perhaps
a treasure map!  In this case, it would possibly not be a crime.

It seems, in terms of voting, assuming b) would be the most practical 
solution.  However, nomic is not about practical solutions, but following
the rules (that is why nomics crash sometimes).  Rather than make a ruling
on this issue, which is completely out of the bounds of my power, and
inappropriate, I would appreciate comment on how to resolve this situation
within the framework of the rules.  Given my schedule, a CFJ tonite may
be a stretch, perhaps as late as tomorrow evening.  I would hope that 
others would have the time to do the legal research required.  If there
is no interest, I will come up with something, hopefully in time for
voting.

Malenkai
busy

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 05:07:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Otzma Day 4

Otzma Day 4 was triggered by the acceptance of P1619. This happened
sometime on Jan 15 or 16. By the time I became aware of this, the Otzma
Day was already over.  Whether or not I had broken the rules by not
creating any Otzma Cards depends entirely on the value on LSAP. If the
value is 10 or greater, then I was required to create to least one Otzma
Card. Otherwise, there is no requirement to take advantage of the Otzma
Day, although had I been aware of it at the time I would have certainly
taken the opportunity to do so.  Since we are expecting some Boons soon,
one might that Otzma Cards might be among them.
I have yet to determine that number, which simply means I have to go over
the proposal archives with pen and paper.  Should I discover that I have
indeed broken the law, I shall invoke a CFCJ, unless someone else does it
first.

Niccolo Flychuck
RuneMaker

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:14:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  strange bot occurences

Malenkai wrote:

[about the proposal distribution problem]

> c) or, is a crime being committed and anything after the first incorrectly
> numbered one not actually proposals, just gizz in the system, perhaps
> a treasure map!  In this case, it would possibly not be a crime.

I think I would go with c)

From R 406:

> The Duties of the Promoter are: 

> (c) assign the proposal a number 1 greater than the number assigned to
> the previously distributed proposal, and distribute it for voting. 

> The Promoter has three days to distribute each proposal in accordance
> with part (c) except during a Proposal Moratorium [see R 415]. 

While it can be argued that violation of duties is permissable, as in
the case where snowgod mis-distributed voting results, the clause at
the end of the rule is not a duty, but a mandate that the proposals
be distributed as in step c), which they were not.  Therefore anything
numbered greater than P 1652 is not a proposal.

The only solution I can think of within the rules is Crisis Resolution,
with the following rule change:

Create a new rule with text:

{{
Proposals with numbers 1653 through 1664, excluding 1655, are created,
with text, titles, and authorship identical to those proposal-like 
posts as disributed and numbered by Mohammed.  The authorship assigned
by this rule shall be attached to the proposals as if that player was
the author.

Then, those newly created proposals shall be distributed to the public
forum for voting consideration, in numberical order, lowest to highest. 
}}

I personally abhor the use of Crisis Resolution; it seems to take all
the fun out of it.  However, if no one else would find it fun...

I guess the same thing could be done with a CSR; I objected to that
office for the same reasons.

comments?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:18:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Tammany reform

> > [ This also removes the SILENT option.  Objections?  (I am not sure it
> > has ever been used.) ]
> It has been used, and I personally would like to keep it.
	I don't like it.  :o(

> >     b) an amount of currency from 5 to 25 A$s, evenly divisible by A$5.
> I was thinking of having inflation kick in here.  How about 25 to 125?
	Ouch!  I could just lift the limit on it, and players could spend 
however much they want.  alternatively, 10 to 50 would be fine for me.

- --Mohammed
stingy

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:17:33 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:Assistance

Salutations!!
 
                 I wish to formally offer my assistance to any officer
with a huge workload.  I'm not sure how, but ask, and I will if I can.

                                 Regards,
                                         Strider

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:23:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

> I think I would go with c)
	It looks correct.

> Then, those newly created proposals shall be distributed to the public
> forum for voting consideration, in numberical order, lowest to highest. 
	Okay.  I still have 'em.

> I personally abhor the use of Crisis Resolution; it seems to take all
> the fun out of it.  However, if no one else would find it fun...
	This isn't fun for me.  :o(

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:25:41 -0600 (CST)
From: shimmin robert gene <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: kissing the undead

fnord spake

>> 3) The undead's of all dead players will gather at the house of one
>> unluckly player and cheer as one of them kisses him.  This player will be
>> randomly selected from a list of players who have not publically wished
>> happy birthday greetings to ackanomic.
>>
>> The undead congregate at fnord's house.
>
>
>Ya know, I had been thinking of calling a CFJ on _this_ little
>foofarall, along the same lines of Malenkai's, because how can we know
>whose house gets plagued by undead, until after the celebration is
>over anyway.

The way the rule is worded, the OiCoRT is more or less free to put the 
deadline for well-wishing more or less anywhen he desires (although the 
efficiency clause may apply here and limit it to three days).  The only 
things that have to happen before the undead's congregation are the 
parade and the brass monkey's song, and because non-player entities 
cannot help but obey the rules wherever possible, whenever the OiCoRT 
decides to determine where the Undead congregate, the parade and monkey 
bit must have occurred, and he is free to act.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:30:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1656

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > From [email-masked] Jan 21 16:15:11 1997
> > Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:51:35 -0500
> > From: "Steven A. Swiniarski" <[email-masked]>
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Acka: Arcobot: Votes
> 
> 	*sigh*  A corrected version will appear shortly.  I can't believe 
> this is happening.  :o)
> 
> --Mohammed
> annoyance meter:  9.8

Ah.  One minor mystery appears to have sorted itself out.

Did anybody get a bunch of Swann's votes as a postfix to Proposal 1656?  

If the answer is no, the bot is okay (relatively speaking) and it's 
actually a bug in pine (!) that's causing my annoyance.

- --Mohammed
happy, ish
will get around to lantern later tonight

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:31:52 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences 

>> I personally abhor the use of Crisis Resolution; it seems to take all
>> the fun out of it.  However, if no one else would find it fun...
>	This isn't fun for me.  :o(

Yeah. I wish to express suport for CR *only* as the last resort. Why not
allow as a privilege, the promoter to make corrections and retractions? This
sounds like a logical thing to allow, given that errors do and will probably
always happen?

I see nothing wrong with the promoter saying: "Acka: Publication Typo: Props
will be renumbered shortly". Or allow him to publish proposal under unused
numbers? That might be more dangerous.

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:32:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > I think I would go with c)
>         It looks correct.
> 
> > Then, those newly created proposals shall be distributed to the public
> > forum for voting consideration, in numberical order, lowest to highest.
>         Okay.  I still have 'em.

Would you actually have to redistribute them?  The new rule is doing
the distribution.  Perhaps some wording could be added to say:

"
These are deemed to be distrubted as they were by Mohammed, with the
same time stamp, and they need not be physically reposted.  This rule
has precedence over all rules.
"

I don't love the wording, but there should be some sort of wording that
can patch it as if nothing happened.

Since they possibly have not been distributed (interpretation c), you
could do a dummy 1652, then the real ones, a dummy 1655, then the
real ones again, and the only work added would be the web-harfer 
changing the timestamps, and some players re-voting.  I personally have
not voted on anything above 1651, but others may have.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:36:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

> I see nothing wrong with the promoter saying: "Acka: Publication Typo: Props
> will be renumbered shortly". Or allow him to publish proposal under unused
> numbers? That might be more dangerous.
	I have already received votes on the proposals as they are.
	Actually, the way the bot is set up, I could change all the proposal 
numbers without risking loss of votes.  However, this would still cause 
confusion, because I would then receive votes but not know whether the 
people sending the votes were using the proposal numbers "as labelled" or 
the corrected proposal numbers.
	CR is less confusing.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:42:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  strange bot occurences

>> From R 406:
> 
>> The Duties of the Promoter are: 
> 
>> (c) assign the proposal a number 1 greater than the number assigned to
>> the previously distributed proposal, and distribute it for voting. 
> 
>> The Promoter has three days to distribute each proposal in accordance
>> with part (c) except during a Proposal Moratorium [see R 415]. 
> 
> While it can be argued that violation of duties is permissable, as in
> the case where snowgod mis-distributed voting results, the clause at
> the end of the rule is not a duty, but a mandate that the proposals
> be distributed as in step c), which they were not.  Therefore anything
> numbered greater than P 1652 is not a proposal.

Well, now - if their misnumbering makes everything greater than 1652
"not a proposal", then can't we say that the real proposals haven't
even been distributed yet? We can ascertain, by application of R406,
that the messages that came from Mohammed that *appeared* to be
proposals were not in fact proposals, and really just so much blather,
and then Mohammed can submit the proposals correctly, as long as he
does so within the three-day limit.

(We could even call a snowgod's-disease hearing on Acrobot. I'm
kidding.)

BTW, I would definitely argue that the CSRR office is wholly
inappropriate for this situation. While Crisis Resolution is
abhorrent, at least this is closer to the kind of things it was meant
to handle.

b

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:44:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

> "
> These are deemed to be distrubted as they were by Mohammed, with the
> same time stamp, and they need not be physically reposted.  This rule
> has precedence over all rules.
> "
> 
> I don't love the wording, but there should be some sort of wording that
> can patch it as if nothing happened.
	*grin* I don't love it either, but we won't have to live with it for 
long.

> Since they possibly have not been distributed (interpretation c), you
> could do a dummy 1652, then the real ones, a dummy 1655, then the
> real ones again, and the only work added would be the web-harfer 
> changing the timestamps, and some players re-voting.  I personally have
> not voted on anything above 1651, but others may have.
	I have received 2 to 3 votes for each of the proposals above 1651. 

	However un-fun a Crisis Resolution may be, redistributing all the 
proposals must be un-fun-ner still, no?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:04:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postmaster

The e-mail flood of the last couple days has filled the mailboxes of
two of our webtv.net players, Joan of Arkansas ([email-masked])
and nietzsche ([email-masked]).  I am exercising my privilege as
Postmaster to put them on the digest list.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:15:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1665

Proposal 1665
Amending "Winning by Paradox"
Calvin N Hobbes

{This will allow *limited* loophole surfing without problematic side
effects. That should allow for a little more clean good fun. It will also
allow us to train at paradox spotting    :o)  }

Amend R219 "Winning by Paradox" to read, in whole:

If any of the following occurs: (i) the rules are changed so that further
play is impossible, or (ii) rule changes are impossible, or (iii) an action
which would affect the game state appears equally legal and illegal, or (iv)
there exist a contradiction or paradox in the rule set that is only resolved
by R210, then a player may call for judgement on a statement to that effect,
identifying clearly in the reasoning with which of the four above cases they
invoke the call for judgement.

Such a call for judgement must also contain in its reasoning a statement to
the effect that the initiator is claiming a win in accordance with R 219 on
a verdict of True. Such a CFJ is called a "Paradox Win CFJ". No CFJ may be
called a Paradox Win CFJ, except as designated by the Rules. 

If the statement is judged True, and the judgement is not overruled, then
the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the cycle; the
win occurring at the time it becomes illegal to appeal the CFJ under the
current rules.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:15:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1667

Proposal 1667
Amending "Overturning Judgements"
Calvin N Hobbes

{This actually makes use of AOJs by the Supreme Court, as it was once meant
to do}

Amend R217 " Overturning Judgements" by adding the following at the end:

The Supreme Court will return its verdict as an AOJ in the according format
and with proper formalities as defined in the rule set. There is no need to
quote the entire CFJ that was appealed, only ensure that proper reference to
that CFJ is made in the AOJ.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:15:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1666

Proposal 1666
Amending "Invoking Judgement"
Calvin N Hobbes

{The following change means that there is no indefinite protection of
paradoxes within the rules}

Amend the last line of R211 "Invoking Judgement" to read, in whole:

Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox, in the
judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ judged TRUE in the previous
two cycles shall be judged Invalid. 

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:22:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 337 (Swann)

Swann has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 337
  Subject: Invalid Paradox CFJs
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 22, 1997, 23:22h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

The correct verdict for any Paradox Win CFJ is Invalid.

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:

from R211:
>Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
>(hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
>similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox Win
>CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
>Invalid.

Any Paradox Win CFJ's statement is substantially similar (actually,
identical in all respects) to the statement of a Paradox Win CFJ submitted by
some player and not yet resolved, to wit, its own.

Hence, the proper verdict is Invalid.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:24:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 335 Verdict

CFJ 335 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 335
  Subject: Still unraveling Rule 1630
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 22, 1997, 19:47h EST)
Judgement: FALSE
 
Statement:
 
Players who wished Acka 'Happy Birthday' before Jan 22, 1997, 12:00,
EST, and have not done so after that time do not receive a Boon of the
Ancients as a result of R 1630.
 
Malenkai's Reasoning:
 
I was at least hoping to get that resolved as well with CFJ 333, but
alas it was not.  I believe the preamble of R 1630 establishes a scope
that the 'Happy Birthday' wishes count only if done during the festivities,
which start at 12:00, but itwould be very easy for me to see a judgement
of false the way the rule is worded.  The fact that I believe this is
because that is the way the rule was intended to work; that interpretation
is a bit of handwaving.  This may seem like a pointless CFJ, but I would
like to make sure no one gets cheated out of their boon just due to
my reading of the rules.
 
Needless to say, a prompt verdict would be nice.
 
The good news is we have a whole year to clean up the rule :)

Judge's Comments:

I'd like the situation carefully.
The rule states that festivities start on January 22nd and does not
specify a time of day, therefore the festivities start on noon at that
day. It specifies that they continue until noon the next day, so far so
good.
Section 4 is the relevant to this CFJ
it says
4) Every Player who has publically wished happy birthday greetings to
Ackanomic shall recieve a Boon of the Ancients.

It states when Boons of the Ancients are received by players. It also
states that those players are ones who have wished happy birthday to
Ackanomic. It does not define a time frame for those wishes, except that
they must have happened already, and the President's speech follows that
act.

Specifically to the initiator's coment about the preamble. The preamble
does not require anything of players, and does not restrict such birthday
wishes, and while it may point to what might have been the intent of this
rule, I can only judge by the actual wording of the rule, which, IMO, does
not restrict Boon of the Ancient only to those players who made their
public wishes during the festivities.

I judge this CFJ False.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:27:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665

> Proposal 1665
> Amending "Winning by Paradox"
> Calvin N Hobbes

> Amend R219 "Winning by Paradox" to read, in whole:
> 
> If any of the following occurs: (i) the rules are changed so that further
> play is impossible, or (ii) rule changes are impossible, or (iii) an action
> which would affect the game state appears equally legal and illegal, or (iv)
> there exist a contradiction or paradox in the rule set that is only resolved
> by R210, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^

No.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:29:11 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665 

>No.

Why?

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:37:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665

> 
> >No.
> 
> Why?
> 

There are dozens of places within the rules where only the default
numeric precedence system and/or intra-rule precedence resolves
a conflict between rules.  This proposes to give a paradox win for
merely pointing out one of these.  

And *I* certainly don't want to see a rule set where ever rule that
conflicts with any other rule has a precedence/deference clause there.
That would just make the rules that much harder to read.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:38:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1665

> >No.
> Why?
	I agree.  That's not enough of an accomplishment to award a win on.  
Maybe points.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:37:25 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665

T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> >No.
> 
> Why?

Salutations!

		I think that what he means is that if a "Paradox" can be resolved by
R210 (resolving conflict via the ordinal numbers of the rules) that it
is not actually a Paradox.  

				Regards,
					Strider

Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this stuff!

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:47:58 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1666

> Proposal 1666
> Amending "Invoking Judgement"
> Calvin N Hobbes
> 
> {The following change means that there is no indefinite protection of
> paradoxes within the rules}
> 
> Amend the last line of R211 "Invoking Judgement" to read, in whole:
> 
> Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox, in the
> judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ judged TRUE in the previous
> two cycles shall be judged Invalid. 

I think this is a fine concept, but there are two technical problems
with this as written:

1. It should say "Amend the last sentence", not "last line".

2. "in the previous two cycles" should be "in the current cycle or
    previous two cycles" -- it's possible that somebody could submit
    a copycat PW-CFJ immediately after one comes back TRUE, and get a
    verdict before the period to appeal the other one ends.  Or does
    that get killed on the basis of the PW-CFJ still not being resolved?
    In any case, it can't hurt to be safe here.

I would also prefer a minimum time elapsed as well, say two months,
in case we have some short cycles.

A recent CFJ points out also that the previous sentence should say
"another Paradox Win CFJ submitted" instead of "a Paradox Win CFJ
submitted".

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:52:03 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1668

Proposal 1668
The Morning After
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal the rule created by proposal 1630, "Happy Birthday Ackanomic!".

{{[no offense, but we have a whole year to think up a new one.  I still
believe the rule is a paradox, but even if it isn't, well I dunno...]}}

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:53:08 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665 

/dev/joe was heard saying:
>There are dozens of places within the rules where only the default
>numeric precedence system and/or intra-rule precedence resolves
>a conflict between rules.  This proposes to give a paradox win for
>merely pointing out one of these.  

and

Mohammed was heard saying:
>I agree.  That's not enough of an accomplishment to award a win on.  
>Maybe points.

[thump] Ok, I can dig up my older version. It actually assigned "minor wins"
for this, which did not end a cycle (although a number of them would). It
was *much* more lengthy so I cut everything out and went for the simple stuff.

>And *I* certainly don't want to see a rule set where ever rule that
>conflicts with any other rule has a precedence/deference clause there.
>That would just make the rules that much harder to read.

I thought about that, but it looks as though most of the conflicts don't
have to be resolved by claiming precedence, only making them aware of other
rules and correcting errors. On the other hand, I completely agree with you
that tons of intra-precedence is a bane.

I'll work on this further. My aim is to bring back some limited and safe
loophole surfing. It's a game worth playing imho.

Thanks for your both your opinions, I hope to hear some more from you! From
your first message /dev/joe, I was worried, wondering what on this flat
earth had happened. Not even a sig down there.

Calvin N Hobbes
not easily worried

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:55:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665

T Joffrain wrote:

> I'll work on this further. My aim is to bring back some limited and safe
> loophole surfing. It's a game worth playing imho.

All the loophole surfing in this nomic is safe and limited.

Malenkai
reformed loophole surfer

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:57:29 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665 

>I think that what he means is that if a "Paradox" can be resolved by
>R210 (resolving conflict via the ordinal numbers of the rules) that it
>is not actually a Paradox.  

:)

Of course. One of the aim of that proposal was to offer loophole hunting
pratice. In the same way you could argue military exercises aren't war (of
course not) yet they aim to recreate the same thing and any participant
would tell you they were acting as though it was real war.

Just a thought
CnH

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:59:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1643

> Malenkai
> who wonders when Acrobot is going to join as a player

*grin* As soon as I can rig the rules to allow it.  (Maybe I could
have it submit Proposals of randomly composed babble?)  (Come to think of 
it I might do that anyway.)

- --Mohammed

annoyance meter:  3.4, mainly due to the on-off-on-off of the light over 
    this computer

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:00:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665

>> I think that what he means is that if a "Paradox" can be resolved by
>> R210 (resolving conflict via the ordinal numbers of the rules) that it
>> is not actually a Paradox.  
> 
> Of course. One of the aim of that proposal was to offer loophole hunting
> pratice. In the same way you could argue military exercises aren't war (of
> course not) yet they aim to recreate the same thing and any participant
> would tell you they were acting as though it was real war.

Right. I agree with the sentiment. But shooting fish in barrels is not
very valuable as a military exercise.

b

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:00:59 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1665 

>All the loophole surfing in this nomic is safe and limited.

LOL!

Yes, I see (near) non-existent is safe and limited. I guess.   :)
Still, methinks it'd be fun.

>Malenkai
>reformed loophole surfer

CnH
always been reformed loophole surfer

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:59:29 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:Drink

Salutations!

		Seeing as Jammer wouldn't do it, I would like to order a Pan Galactic
Gargle Blaster. After I drink that, I'd like a large glass of Syrian
Panther Sweat.  May the Golden Frog have mercy on my liver.(:

				Regards,
					Strider

I'm _really_ gonna need a taxi, however, I think I'd rather sing!

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:02:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Awards ceremony

> Before a crowd of tens of Ackanomians, I first present Mohammed with
> his second Silver Stripe.  But then comes the main event, something
> the elders once thought would never happen, on this, the last day of the
> first year of Ackanomic's existence.  Malenkai steps up on stage,
> surrenders his collection of Gold and Silver Stripes, and in their
> place, I award him a Ruby Slipper.
	Gee, don't I feel like a spare tire.  :o)

	*All hail Malenkai!*

- --Mohammed

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #473
*******************************