Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #11
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, March 12 1997       Volume 02 : Number 011

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:53:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: acrobot vote breadbox public annoying ohwell

#vote 1775 P Y P
#vote 1779 N
#vote 1781 P
#vote 1783 P N N

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:06:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acrobot

#vote 1786 p y n y y

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:33:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Organized Crime.

Ermmm, does OC exist, yet?  I was just noting some interesting things about
it, but I am not sure if its existence under the rules was ever determined.

Thanks
IB

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:42:47 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 350 (fnord)

Malenkai writes:
> fnord has been chosen.

I hereby accept this CFJ.  I am also submitting my Judgement on this
CFJ.  This email is cc'd to both of Malenkai's addresses, just in case.

Call For Judgement 350
  Subject: Renaming Houses I
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: fnord (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:08h EST)
Judgement: TRUE
 
Statement:
 
In R252 section 1, in the sentence " A player may change the
name of this building by publically announcing the new name and
unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename." refers to the
player's own building.         

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

When we see the word 'this' in a sentence such as the above sentence in a
phrase such as 'this building', we need to ask 'which building' in order
to resolve the phrase unambigously. Since no building is mentioned in that
statement (which statment? the above statement, as the previous sentence
clarifies), it must refer to a building that was refered to in a preceding
sentence. In those sentences (which ones? why, the preceding ones, of
course), the building refered to is clearly the player's own building, and
not just any building the name of which is satisfies the formula "player
name's house." Therefore 'this' in the quoted sentence unambigously
referes only to the player's own building.

Judge's Decision:  TRUE

Judge's Reasoning:
I almost judged this Invalid, considering how confusing the original statement
had been, however, a second reading showed what I believe to be the intent
of the CFJ.

Reading the paragrpah the statement had been lifted from made clear the 
intention of the statement.  The entire paragraph is discussing a New Player's
Home, and the naming thereof.  In fact, the sentence just before it states
'This building shall also be known as "player name's House"...'.  The latter
portion of the sentence referring to 'unambiguously identifying the building'
was written, I believe, merely to make it easier for the Map-Harfer to find
the building which would be having its name changed.

fnord

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:44:22 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Acka:  Reply-to's

Are the Reply-To fields automatically set on the mailing list?

I was wondering, because I got the CFJ on the official list, but it's 
Reply-Ro field was set to acka-discuss, where I could not take a game
action, i.e. accept the CFJ if I had just replied to it and not 
munged the To field.

fnord

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:59:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Ghost

In response to the challenge, my word is:  azonal

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:08:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postal Code Change 102

mr cwm wrote:
>  I suggest an alteration to the Postal Code as the quickest temporary
> fix to the Public Voting problem (i.e., declare a list that includes only
> the Tabulator to be a Public Forum).  That has it's own problems, so I
> wouldn't recommend it as a permanent solution.  

OK, as a temporary fix, I am making the following change in the postal code,
between the === below, effective 3 days from now, if fewer than 2 players
object.
===
Add to the end:

  [email-masked] is a public list usable only for submitting votes
  and proposals to the Tabulator and Promoter, respectively.  Messages
  sent directly to this list (i.e., not through another mailing list)
  are public messages only if they perform one of the actions described
  in the previous sentence.
===

Also, I'm making these votes:
#vote 1784 P P P P P P P

/dev/joe
Remote Postmaster

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:04:21 -0800
From: randy <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Acka: CFJ 350 (fnord)]

Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:42:47 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
To: [email-masked] (Ackanomic)
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 350 (fnord)
Content-Length: 2042

Malenkai writes:
> fnord has been chosen.

I hereby accept this CFJ.  I am also submitting my Judgement on this
CFJ.  This email is cc'd to both of Malenkai's addresses, just in case.

Call For Judgement 350
  Subject: Renaming Houses I
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: fnord (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:08h EST)
Judgement: TRUE
 
Statement:
 
In R252 section 1, in the sentence " A player may change the
name of this building by publically announcing the new name and
unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename." refers to the
player's own building.         

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

When we see the word 'this' in a sentence such as the above sentence in a
phrase such as 'this building', we need to ask 'which building' in order
to resolve the phrase unambigously. Since no building is mentioned in that
statement (which statment? the above statement, as the previous sentence
clarifies), it must refer to a building that was refered to in a preceding
sentence. In those sentences (which ones? why, the preceding ones, of
course), the building refered to is clearly the player's own building, and
not just any building the name of which is satisfies the formula "player
name's house." Therefore 'this' in the quoted sentence unambigously
referes only to the player's own building.

Judge's Decision:  TRUE

Judge's Reasoning:
I almost judged this Invalid, considering how confusing the original statement
had been, however, a second reading showed what I believe to be the intent
of the CFJ.

Reading the paragrpah the statement had been lifted from made clear the 
intention of the statement.  The entire paragraph is discussing a New Player's
Home, and the naming thereof.  In fact, the sentence just before it states
'This building shall also be known as "player name's House"...'.  The latter
portion of the sentence referring to 'unambiguously identifying the building'
was written, I believe, merely to make it easier for the Map-Harfer to find
the building which would be having its name changed.

fnord

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:04:59 -0800
From: randy <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: acka: CFJ 349]

Sender: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:44:24 -0500 (EST)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: acka: CFJ 349
Content-Length: 2779

>Let me prelude this by saying I sincerely hope it gets judged False
>somehow.  I may have overlooked some stuff.  Anyway:

That's funny, I hope to be able to judge it False somehow.

>260 ("Public Actions"):
>> If the rules specify that a certain course of play is available to a
>> player or organization, but do not specify how that course of play
>> is to be taken, then that course of play is a public action, and it
>> is taken as described above.

The following is the first part of R260:

Each attempt to perform an action either succeeds or fails. To perform an
action entails two things: first, to
     attempt the action; and second, for the attempt to succeed. 

     The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public
actions. Any active player may attempt any
     public action available to him or her simply by sending a public message
specifying the action to be taken.
     However, if any information that is necessary to specify the action
fully and unambiguously is left out of that
     message, then the attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other
reasons.] 

I was hoping to judge this CFJ false on the grounds that R260 says "Any
active player MAY attempt... "[emphasis added by me] but the follow on
paragraph ( "...that course of play is a public action, and it
is taken as described above.") seems to me to clarify that the ONLY way to
take a public action is through a public post.

>Rule 408 ("Tabulator and Count Tabula"):
>> The Office of the Tabulator is a Functional Office. The Duties of
>> the Tabulator are:
>> (a) to count votes on each proposal.

Unfortunately, it does not specify how the votes are to be collected or
tabulated, leaving it subject to R260.

>Rule 106 has more on voting, but it doesn't mention the Tabulator.

Nor does it specify how votes are collected or tabulated.

My last hope in judging this CFJ false came from R215 which says:

All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the time
judgement was invoked, and with
     respect to the game state at that time. When the rules are silent,
inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in
     question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game
custom and the spirit of the game in
     reaching a decision. 

I was hoping to use currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game
to render this CFJ false.  However, the rules are not silent, inconsistent or
unclear on the statement in question, therefore this clause does not apply.

It is with a great deal of trepidation and worry that I therefore
A) return a verdict of TRUE on CFJ 349
and
B) Ask for a CSRR report on the matter at hand.  It would take very little in
the way of change and I expect the reaction to it would be positive.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:09:18 -0800
From: randy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CotC

Note:  CFJ judgements should only be sent to me, to save bandwidth
and for other reasons.  I have forwarded them back to the list
as official publication; they did not count before then.

Also, snowgod has been chosen to judge the CFJ CnH declined on.
Check the CotC page for the number.

Right now, I am on the floor of internet world configuting our 
computers for the internet, so I am not as organized -- also my mailer
may be three hours off, apply the appropriate correction.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:39:04 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CotC 

>Note:  CFJ judgements should only be sent to me, to save bandwidth
>and for other reasons.  I have forwarded them back to the list
>as official publication; they did not count before then.
>
>Also, snowgod has been chosen to judge the CFJ CnH declined on.
>Check the CotC page for the number.
>
>Right now, I am on the floor of internet world configuting our
>computers for the internet, so I am not as organized -- also my mailer
>may be three hours off, apply the appropriate correction.
>
>Malenkai

I accept judegment on this CFJ.

snowgod
also-remote

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #11
******************************