Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #494
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, January 31 1997       Volume 01 : Number 494

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:08:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1704

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> "snuck" should be construed as "sneaking" (sorry) a functional change
> of the way the game is played in with a reorg, and not construed
> offensively.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying I'd tried to put 
something into the rules via the reorg knowing that it would have been 
voted down had it not been there, which wasn't the case.  Now that I know 
how you meant it, there is no offense either intended or taken.

> Again, I apologize for any offense, and will keep my language as
> neutral as I am capable of in the future, if that is what you would
> feel most confortable with :)

No, no -- I like colorful language.  Language by nature is ambiguous (do 
I really need to say that :) ?), and a few misunderstandings are 
inevitable.  I will try not to take offense quite so easily in the future.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:15:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1704

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> No, no -- I like colorful language.  Language by nature is ambiguous (do
> I really need to say that :) ?), and a few misunderstandings are
> inevitable.  I will try not to take offense quite so easily in the future.

I can't stand doing this by e-mail sometimes.  If only people new
my expressions and emotions when I was writing, and likewise if I 
could only know theirs.  BTW, I was thinking "slipped" might have been
better -- I was just trying to connote the idea of the "political
rider".

Try to think of that sort of writing by me good natured digging.  I am
prone to do that, and that is probably not wise via e-mail.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:38:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH)

Calvin N Hobbes has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 344
  Subject: Open Invitation at the Monument to Futility 
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jan 31, 1997, 00:37h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

/dev/joe is not at the Monument of Futility, as of the time of
the finding of Treasure 103.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is not nit-picking; I generally find the sort of nuance in
this CFJ interesting, and somewhat important in developing a notion
of what "game state" is.  If no one else does, I apologize.

/dev/joe posted about 3 days ago:

- ------
A long time ago, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> I am adding a 145-meter Ostentatious Tower to Xanadu.  Its name is the
> Monument to Futility.
>
> On each side of the door to the Monument to Futility is a large marble
> tablet bearing the legend, "This tower was erected by Guy Fawkes on the
> First of November in Year One of Ackanomic.  It serves as a memorial to
> all who have tried and failed to win by means of paradox, and as a
> reminder that these Calls for Judgement are not nuissances, but an
> integral part of our heritage.  All are free to enter the Monument, but
> do so with neither irritation nor anger, for the discourse engendered by
> these attempts has been well worth the efforts in having them judged." [...]

I am going to the Monument to Futility.
- ------

From R 835:

> 4) A Location may be specified as a Common Location. Players may leave
> and enter such Locations freely, provided they meet any specific
> conditions that may be defined for the Common Location. 

From R 839:

> Each instance of a player Home is a Common Location, with the
> restriction that no player may enter a Home they don't own without
> permission of the owner. 

The question is, did Guy Fawkes grant /dev/joe permission to enter his
house (the tower, for all intents and purposes, is part of the house,
permission to enter one is sufficient to enter the other).

If he did not have permission, he is not at the Tower.

/dev/joe claims permission is granted from the description of the
Tower itself [or at least I presume that is the basis of the claim]:

> All are free to enter the Monument, but do so with neither irritation
> nor anger

What if /dev/joe attempted to do so with anger?  Is the Tower description
sufficient to deny permission to an angry player to enter?

I argue that the Tower description has no power to change the game state
in this way, and that is the key point of this CFJ, what is a change
in the game state?  I argue that the granting of permission to enter
a common location is a change in the game state, and that a Tower
description does not have the authority to do that.

From R 841:

> Towers may not manipulate protected entities or perform protected
> actions

The "protected" language is from a previous era in the rules, but it
seems that granting permission to enter a common location is 
protected.

On the other hand, it does seem obvious that a player should be able to
grant permission via a tower description, but I do not think "seeming
obvious" is enough.

What if the owner of the Tower wants to revoke permission?  Can they
override the desciption carved in the Tower?  If the description is
granted authority by the rules to grant the permission, the answer
is no.  If it is not, this CFJ is trivially TRUE.

I'm not overly concerned where /dev/joe is, as it did not affect the
treasure hunt, but again apologize for finding this sort of thing
interesting.

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:45:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> I am creating a new Blueprint as follows:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Blueprint
> Jukkasjarvi Mind Control Laser

This blueprint has existed for 3 days.  I am building a JMCL.

Malenkai
Wizard

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:56:08 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka:  Proposal 1702 

> Kings cannot be Transmogrified, nor can Kings be Created through
> Transmogrification.

  I'm not certain this sentence takes effect, since an earlier paragraph
says "any piece".  Anybody?

- -Red Barn

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #494
*******************************