Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #496
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, February 1 1997      Volume 01 : Number 496

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:15:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: A$ to Thinman

I transfer A$300 to ThinMan

niccolo -300 misc
ThinMan +300 misc

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:16:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hearing 105 result

Red Barn has snowgod's disease.  All the players listed below voted
for it, none against.

The cure is as follows:

You must find your Guru.  Your Guru is the first person 
to use the word "bandwidth" in a public message (after
this one, not in a quote, not yourself).  It is recommended
that you build a tall Tower so that you will have a good
view whilst looking for, and consulting with, your Guru.
Upon finding your Guru, get further instructions from him.
- --------------

Red Barn
/dev/joe
Malenkai
snowgod
Mohammed
ThinMan
Guy Fawkes
mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:24:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> According to rule 1230.2, TARZAN's Treehouse receives 1 King and 5
> other Party Chess Pieces.  I select the following pieces: 1 Rook, 1
> Copycat, 1 Archer, 1 Kamikaze, and 1 Pawn.
> 
> I now create a treasure out of TARZAN's Treehouse.  I bury the treasure
> and very carefully make a map of how to find it.
> 
> ThinMan
>

Since ThinMan burried eir Capital Swinger's Office, e does not become
Swinger, and the price for a Capital Swinger's Office remains the same.
Then one could always try to find TARZAN's Treehouse...

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:23:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Since ThinMan burried eir Capital Swinger's Office, e does not become
> Swinger, and the price for a Capital Swinger's Office remains the same.
> Then one could always try to find TARZAN's Treehouse...

What happens to the chess pieces?

Malenkai
not up on party chess law

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:22:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Jammer's house

  This would be "permissible and unregulated", right?  Then he can build
his house, but whether it has any effect on the game state depends on the
definition of "unregulated".  How has this been interpreted in the past?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:26:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (snowgod)

snowgod has found Phoebe's matchbox.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:35:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Since ThinMan burried eir Capital Swinger's Office, e does not become
> > Swinger, and the price for a Capital Swinger's Office remains the same.
> > Then one could always try to find TARZAN's Treehouse...
> 
> What happens to the chess pieces?
> 
> Malenkai
> not up on party chess law
> 
IMEO (In My Expert Opinion), nothing. 
ThinMan was Swinger for a short while, and then he selected the pieces.
The pieces go with the Office. Since he didn't resign, the Office
isn't destroyed. I still have to place it on the playing order, and in six
days it becomes Warm, so it won't delay currnet play.
Whoever finds the Treasure gets the Office lock, stock and barrel.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:45:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

The chess pieces belong to the Office of Swinger called TARZAN'S 
Treehouse.  However, depending on one's interpretation of the rules, said 
office may no longer exist.

From rule 726:
>6. A Capital Swinger may resign at any time. In such a case, the Office of
>   Swinger e resigned from is destroyed. 

If one interprets resign to mean "to voluntarily give up the office" or 
something along those lines, in burying that Office of Swinger, he 
destroyed it.  On the other hand, if resignation in this context is given 
a highly specific game meaning such as "to publically post a message 
saying 'I resign from this office'" then TARZAN's Treehouse is still in 
existence.  This is one of those fuzzy areas of interpretation, made even 
fuzzier by the fact that some words in the ruleset have both 
game-specific and standard English meanings based on context, IMO.

Take for instance, judgement.  Judgement has a very game-specific meaning 
in the context of our justice system: it is the act of a player, once 
having been selected as a Judge, considering a CFJ returning eir 
verdict.  In this case, it is usually capitalized Judgement so that we 
all know that we are talking about a game-specific context.  Still, at 
many points in the ruleset, we have locutions such as "if in [some 
officer's] judgement, [some condition] exists, then [something 
happens]."  Often, these applications have nothing to do with a CFJ.  
Here, "judgement," as in standard English, is a synonym for "opinion."

This is one of those areas where one needs consider not only whether the 
concept has a game-specific meaning, but also whether the game-specific 
meaning applies in this context.

Guy Fawkes 

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Since ThinMan burried eir Capital Swinger's Office, e does not become
> > Swinger, and the price for a Capital Swinger's Office remains the same.
> > Then one could always try to find TARZAN's Treehouse...
> 
> What happens to the chess pieces?
> 
> Malenkai
> not up on party chess law
> 

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:58:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> The chess pieces belong to the Office of Swinger called TARZAN'S 
> Treehouse.  However, depending on one's interpretation of the rules, said 
> office may no longer exist.
> 
> >From rule 726:
> >6. A Capital Swinger may resign at any time. In such a case, the Office of
> >   Swinger e resigned from is destroyed. 
> 
> If one interprets resign to mean "to voluntarily give up the office" or 
> something along those lines, in burying that Office of Swinger, he 
> destroyed it.  On the other hand, if resignation inthis context is given 
> a highly specific game meaning such as "to publically post a message 
> saying 'I resign from this office'" then TARZAN's Treehouse is still in 
> existence.  This is one of those fuzzy areas of interpretation, made even 
> fuzzier by the fact that some words in the ruleset have both 
> game-specific and standard English meanings based on context, IMO.

A Capital Swinger Office is a Political Office, and unless it makes some
exception, where allowed, the terminology used is the same as the
terminology used in the Office rules. So, IMO, ThinMan did not resign, and
the Office exists.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:26:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma Day ?

Wasn't an Otzma day declared recently due to a prime proposal
passing?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:33:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> A Capital Swinger Office is a Political Office, and unless it makes some
> exception, where allowed, the terminology used is the same as the
> terminology used in the Office rules. So, IMO, ThinMan did not resign, and
> the Office exists.

I've been looking in the rules to see exactly what the game-context 
definition of resgination is.

"resign" is given its most specific definition in the context of 
Grab-a-Donkey, where it is a legitimate first-round move which results in 
their removal from the GAL before the next round.  This definition, 
though the most explicit in the ruleset, is clearly not what the Swinger 
rule refers to.

"resign" is occasionally used to indicate leaving the game of Ackanomic, 
which is thoroughly defined as an action which triggers a very specific 
procedure, although the "Players" rules do not actually call it 
resignation.  In these contexts, the usual phrase is "resign from the 
game of Ackanomic" or something to that effect.  This is a fairly 
explicit treatment, but it is NOT what the Swinger rule refers to.

The most common use of "resign" is in the rules defining various Offices 
or office-like positions (quasi-offices which carry some prestige and 
responsibility but no Officer status, like Expert or Assistant to the 
Financier).  The Swinger rule falls into this overall category.  The 
usual context is "[this Officer] may resign" or "if [this officer] 
resigns", which would lead one to suspect that the general rules on the 
topic of Officers might have something to say about resignation.

Upon looking at these rules to see exactly what terminology you were 
referring to, I was surprised to find that there was none.  The only use 
of the word "resign" was in the Smooth Transition of Duties clause, which 
applies only to Function Officers, anyway.  What the general Officer rules 
hereon do have to say about resignation, in the comman-English sense, as 
the exact word appears to lack a game-specific meaning in reference to 
officers, is this, which appears to be what all the specific-Officer 
rules are refering to when they mention the concept of resignation:

>vii) Stepping Down: 
>
>An Officer may always voluntarily step down from office, 
>leaving it vacant.  Whenever possible, the Officer should give at least 3 
>day's notice of his intention to vacate an office. 

which describes fairly accurately ThinMan's actions -- he voluntarily 
left the Office of TARZAN'S Treehouse vacant.

As mentioned in my previous post, ThinMan's actions, IMO, do constitute 
resignation if used in a common-English sense.  If, on the other hand, 
there is some game-specific meaning of "resignation" that his actions 
clearly do not fall under, then the Treasure remains intact.  I have not 
yet managed to find such a definition of resignation.  I am as 
interested in a free Capital Swinger office as anyone, but before I spend 
an ungodly number of hours trying to break his code, I want to know if 
there is actually something to find.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:47:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Upon looking at these rules to see exactly what terminology you were 
> referring to, I was surprised to find that there was none.  The only use 
> of the word"resign" was in the Smooth Transition of Duties clause, which 
> applies only to Function Officers, anyway.  What the general Officer rules 
> hereon do have to say about resignation, in the comman-English sense, as 
> the exact word appears to lack a game-specific meaning in reference to 
> officers, is this, which appears to be what all the specific-Officer 
> rules are refering to when they mention the concept of resignation:
> 
> >vii) Stepping Down: 
> >
> >An Officer may always voluntarily step down from office, 
> >leaving it vacant.  Whenever possible, the Officer should give at least 3 
> >day's notice of his intention to vacate an office. 
> 
> which describes fairly accurately ThinMan's actions -- he voluntarily 
> left the Office of TARZAN'S Treehouse vacant.

I argue that game custom is that Officers make post a public message to
the effect that they are resigning. Leaving an Office vacant is not the
action causing resignation, but the result of resignation.

I think this requires a CFJ, and since you brought this up, I think you
should be the one to invoke it, with all the reasoning you posted in the
previous two posts.

 > 
> As mentioned in my previous post, ThinMan's actions, IMO, do constitute 
> resignation if used in a common-English sense.  If, on the other hand, 
> there is some game-specific meaning of "resignation" that his actions 
> clearly do not fall under, then the Treasure remains intact.  I have not 
> yet managed to find such a definition of resignation.  I am as 
> interested in a free Capital Swinger office as anyone, but before I spend 
> an ungodly number of hours trying to break his code, I want to know if 
> there is actually something to find.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:02:03 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Capitally Swinging

>
>> Since ThinMan burried eir Capital Swinger's Office, e does not become
>> Swinger, and the price for a Capital Swinger's Office remains the same.
>> Then one could always try to find TARZAN's Treehouse...
>
>What happens to the chess pieces?

The pieces belong to the office, not to me, so I cannot bury them.
They will still belong to the office when it is dug up.  At least,
that's the way I interpret the rules.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:15:49 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Capitally Swinging

>
>From rule 726:
>>6. A Capital Swinger may resign at any time. In such a case, the Office of
>>   Swinger e resigned from is destroyed. 
>
>If one interprets resign to mean "to voluntarily give up the office" or 
>something along those lines, in burying that Office of Swinger, he 
>destroyed it.  On the other hand, if resignation in this context is given 
>a highly specific game meaning such as "to publically post a message 
>saying 'I resign from this office'" then TARZAN's Treehouse is still in 
>existence.  This is one of those fuzzy areas of interpretation, made even 
>fuzzier by the fact that some words in the ruleset have both 
>game-specific and standard English meanings based on context, IMO.

I bring to your attention another provision of R726: the one that
makes Capital Swinger offices tradeable.  Although it is possible
that the offices are legally but not functionally tradeable, it
seems a more reasonable interpretation of that rule that they are
both legally _and_ functionally tradeable.  For that to be the case,
it must also be the case that a Capital Swinger's office is not
destroyed upon the purchaser's relinquishing it.

I think that "to voluntarily give up the office" is too broad a
>definition in any case, although "to publically post a message
saying 'I resign from this office'" is probably to narrow.  The
most reasonable interpretation, IMO, is that resignation is an
explicit action taken by the person who holds the office.  That
falls somewhere in between GF's two alternatives.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:31:59 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador, what of PNomic? 

>I will get right on a message to the Pnomic.  When It is completed, what
>adress should I send it to for translation?  Also, would it be possible to
>have your brother transalte (at least vaugly) their main Page?
>
>Thanks,
>snowgod

My brother's email address is [email-masked] . Send him the
message and ask him to translate it. Also, if you tell him the URL, and let
him know what you'd like, he may be able to accomodate you.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:06:49 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador: This Means War! 

>
>Ambassador,
>I am not familiar with the internal organization of Thring, their web
>pages are notoriously hard to get. I would like to inform my opposited
>number at Thring that I would like to confer with em, as soon as possible.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>President

I will do so.  Luke Shubert seems to be the chief cheese over there.  I
will set up a conderence.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:49:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH) 

>Calvin N Hobbes has been chosen.
>Call For Judgement 344

I accept it.

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:13:41 +73600 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Request for a visit

Wow, this Amber Banana Tree must be quite something, since
two Amber Bananas went so recently.

Techno, may I come and visit your Home, the Temple of the Damned,
to gaze upon this wonder of Acka-organics?

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:14:13 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Frinking

>
>To:   Ackanomians
>From: mr cwm, bartender
>
[...snip...]

>
>Swann ordered salt, a quartered lemon, and three shots of Tequila.  There
>you are, sir.  Our gracious President Niccolo Flychuck will pick up your
>A$6 tab.  Uhhh ... I'll call a taxi for you - would you prefer to pay for
>it or entertain us with a Frinking Song? 
>

Yesh schetainly... (With apologies to Tom Waits)

The Gumball here is spinning,
 The undead kiss their evil twins,
  The Spelling Bee casts its Bonus Votes,
   And the Chartruse Goose throws Grapefruit at me,
And the Politness Moon is blinking,
 The Bass Monkey is tap-dancing,
  And the Voting Gnome's in Party Hall
Cow Town Hotel is dangling,
 The Great Tuba's playing Party Chess
  With a Rock to wind a string around.
The Fat Lady is in Gaol,
 The Little Lamb has stepped in a Processing Chip,
  The Synod's gabbed a Donkey...
And the Piano has been Frinking,
 Not me.

Swann

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:49:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate Election

The following have volunteered for the senate seat.  Send me
your votes.  The election lasts for 3 days.

Robert Sevin
Strider

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:14:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Capitally Swinging

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> I think this requires a CFJ, and since you brought this up, I think you
> should be the one to invoke it, with all the reasoning you posted in the
> previous two posts.

No, I'm satisfied.  I played devil's advocate for a while to see how 
strong the counterargument was;  I didn't want to devote hours to a 
treasure, only to have someone else's CFJ prove it didn't exist.  If 
anyone else is not yet satisfied with this explanation, go ahead and call 
the CFJ; as for me, I do not see a need.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:26:27 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH) 

> > 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.

[Malenkai's discussion snipped]

  I'd just like to comment that that last sentence ("All are free...") is
not necessarily part of the tower description.  Of course, it is in the
same paragraph, but it doesn't actually describe the tower (well, it does,
but not _only_ that).  Were this the case, the issue of whether the
description can grant such permission is not relevant; if it is the case, I
have the additional comment that a player can certainly perform an action
or grant a statement without explicitly stating that they are doing so; if,
for example, in reporting Phoebe's wisdom, if a player stated that they
were "walking in Cow Town", they would (I think) be considered to have
actually done so.  Possibly.  At any rate, that's my somewhat verbose
comment.

  In a spirit of curiousity and exploration, I am entering the Monument to
Futility with irritation at recent discission, as well as anger at the
symbolism of the Monument.  Is this actually a criminal offense?  Who
knows?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:46:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH)

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:

>   I'd just like to comment that that last sentence ("All are free...") is
> not necessarily part of the tower description.

The description follows, edited down:

> 
> > > On each side of the door to the Monument to Futility is a large marble
> > > tablet bearing the legend, "[...] All are free to enter the Monument[...]"

The phrase in question is on a tablet, which is in turn on the tower,
as described by its builder.  It would take a pretty out of the spirit
reading to claim the phrase is not part of the description of the tower.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:03:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 342(ThinMan)

Jan 31 23:03 EST: -10 Jammer: did not respond to CFJ 342

It has been assigned to ThinMan

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 342
  Subject: Tickling Tickle-Me Elmo
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Jammer (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 31, 1997, 23:03h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Blueprint for the "Tickle-Me Elmo" either is destroyed (or does
not exist), or if it does, it is in conflict with the rules and should
be destroyed (as should any Gadgets made from it) in accordance with
Rule 594.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

There are 2 possible cases here, governed from different parts of Rule
594, *either* of which is sufficient for a verdict of TRUE.

Case I:

>From R 594:

> If a new Blueprint does not (a) introduce exactly one new type of
> Gadget, (b) name the new Gadget type, and (c) unambiguously define
> the behavior of such a Gadget, it is immediately destroyed.

>From the Blueprint for "Tickle-Me Elmo":

> A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.

This part of the Blueprint causes the Blueprint to run afoul of
clause (c) above; it does not unabiguously define the behaviour of
the Tickle-Me Elmo.  What does this mean?  It is not clear, ambigious.
I challenge the Judge to unambiguously state the behaviour.

This satisfies the first part of the boolean OR in the CFJ's statement,
and is sufficient for a verdict of TRUE, as the Blueprint is immediately
destroyed.

Case II:

Although I find the Blueprint defining ambiguous behaviour as described
above, the only reasonable rendering of the clause above to avoid
ambiguity is to construe 'selected' to mean 'created', 'built', or
'manufactured'.

However, from R 597:

> Only the Mad Scientist can construct anything from a Blueprint created
> by this Rule [...]

Thus the Tickle-Me Elmo, in building a Tickle-Me Elmo via the 'selected'
clause, runs afoul of the clause from R 597, and is in violation of
the rules, and thus by the following clause in R 597 is destroyed:

> (ii) When a Blueprint is judged to be in conflict with one or more
> Rules, the Blueprint is destroyed, as are any extant Gadgets made
> from that Blueprint.

This case is also sufficient to satisfy the boolean OR in the statement,
leading to a verict of TRUE.

In short, the sentence:

> A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.

Invalidates the Blueprint.  Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously
mean?

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:14:04 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH) 

> The phrase in question is on a tablet, which is in turn on the tower,
> as described by its builder.  It would take a pretty out of the spirit
> reading to claim the phrase is not part of the description of the tower.

  I must not have read that very carefully... tsk.

  I've been at this tower long enough - I'm going home.  Where are
monuments archived, anyway?  I couldn't find them.  (Now, of course, I am
doomed to find what I need as soon as I hit "Send". :|)

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:20:16 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH) 

>   I've been at this tower long enough - I'm going home.  Where are
> monuments archived, anyway?  I couldn't find them.  (Now, of course, I am
> doomed to find what I need as soon as I hit "Send". :|)

  I meant towers, of course.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:22:51 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH)

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:

>   I've been at this tower long enough - I'm going home.  Where are
> monuments archived, anyway?  I couldn't find them.  (Now, of course, I am
> doomed to find what I need as soon as I hit "Send". :|)

They aren't.  I have all the descriptions in a folder, but not on
the web.  There was a rumour that snowgod was going to put the
descriptions on the web, but I have heard nothing further.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:25:00 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH) 

> They aren't.  I have all the descriptions in a folder, but not on
> the web.  There was a rumour that snowgod was going to put the
> descriptions on the web, but I have heard nothing further.
>
> Malenkai

  Are they accessible via FTP?  If they're really not anywhere, I can put
up a very minimal page, if needed.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:31:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH)

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:

>   Are they accessible via FTP?  If they're really not anywhere, I can put
> up a very minimal page, if needed.

I can forward them to you, but I would check with snowgod first, in
case he has actually done it already.  Since I am arguing that the
descriptions do not affect the game state, it is not urgent, although
it would be cool to have them linked from the map, eventually.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:31:54 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 344 (CnH) 

> I can forward them to you, but I would check with snowgod first, in
> case he has actually done it already.  Since I am arguing that the
> descriptions do not affect the game state, it is not urgent, although
> it would be cool to have them linked from the map, eventually.
>
> Malenkai

  Fair 'nuff.  Snowgod, have you?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:45:38 +73800 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Pythoncross treasure update

The deadline for the Pythoncross treasure is noon CST tomorrow.

I have just received a valid entry with a score of 515, which is
beatable, but it will be difficult to do so.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 00:43:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 341 (ThinMan)

Feb 01 00:43 EST: -10 Niccolo Flychuck: did not respond to CFJ 341

It has been assigned to ThinMan.  Also, The Purple Robe of Justice
is transferred to Somewhere Else; it can be bought for the low price
of A$152.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 341
  Subject: The Revenge of Hubert
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Robert Sevin (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (did not respond)
3rd Judge: ThinMan (selected Feb 01, 1997, 00:43h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Guy Fawkes' guess as to the Machine's That Goes *ping*'s Truth on the
morning of January 28, 1997, preceded ThinMan's similar guess as to the
Truth.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

Not that I am hellbent on what was really a very cheap guess
for either of us, but it is important to know.

In the similar Hubert situation (CFJ 324, excellent reading, by the way), it
was ruled that one must use the sender's timestamp in determining the order
of
Ackanomic actions, unless a time correction factor for the sender's
computer (via the last paragraph of R370) is in effect.  At the time of
the guesses at the truth, neither ThinMan's nor my email had a correction
factor in effect.

Since then, Proposal 1572 added this clause to the end of Rule 370 to
attempt to resolve future "Hubert" situations.

>Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
>announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are being
>applied. Moreover, it is a privilege of the Postmaster to post such
>corrections with respect to other players' posts, if he can factually
>determine the relevant information.

I contend that this clause does not have its intended effect; namely, it
cannot generate a retroactive effect.

>From Rule 103 (precedent over R370)
>No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
>before the generation of the effect.

When a player invokes the questionable clause of Rule 370, it attempts to
generate an effect (an email correction factor) which applies
retroactively to a time before the generation of the effect (the time at
which to correction factor was posted).

Although Proposal 1572's efforts are well-intentioned, they are null, and
that ThinMan's correction factor did not apply to his guess at the Truth.

On a side note, I question whether it is possible for the Postmaster to
_factually_ determine the correction factor using email headers.  For
simplicity's sake, let's accept for the rest of this reasoning, wilma's
time as being "correct"; whether it is or not, it gives us a frame of
reference.  Timestamps for the two messages (min:sec)

                GF              Thinman
localhost       7:23            7:37
intermediate    7:23            5:31
wilma           8:19            6:13

It is obvious that ThinMan's machine was "fast" relative to wilma, but by
how much?  The intermediates are no help; they too could be fast or
slow.  It is also possible that the uiuc machines were even faster than
ThinMan's this morning.  Furthermore, any number of system clocks could
have been adjusted in the meantime, making measurements against the
atomic clock server _now_ unreliable.

The point of this is, even if it were legal for the Postmaster to apply a
retroactive timestamp correction, there is not enough data for him to do so.
It is entirely possible (although admittedly improbable) that I did
indeed hit the "send" key before ThinMan and my message was stalled on
the wire somewhere, and that inaccurate clocks make it impossible to
determine with finality whether or not this is indeed the case.

This area needs more work.

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:46:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 341 (ThinMan)

> Feb 01 00:43 EST: -10 Niccolo Flychuck: did not respond to CFJ 341
> 
> It has been assigned to ThinMan.  Also, The Purple Robe of Justice
> is transferred to Somewhere Else; it can be bought for the low price
> of A$152.

I hereby purchase the Purple Robe of Justice for A$152.

breadbox

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #496
*******************************