Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #18
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, March 18 1997        Volume 02 : Number 018

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:07:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Silver Key

If, by some chance, I possess the silver key, I am burying it
as a treasure.

The map is the top one in my (real life) home on my stack of
unused treasure maps, but I am not revealing any information
about the map at this time, so that if it is found that I do
not possess the silver key, I may reuse this map later for
some other treasure.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:26:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 354 Verdict

CFJ 354 has been judged FALSE.  

According to the reasoning, any key buried as a treasure is 
transferred to the Chartreuse Goose.  It still leaves open the question
of who has the Silver key.  Since I no longer have the Goose, I don't
have to track it, but since I am the Speaker, I have to track it.  I
will need to submit at least 2 CFJs more to clear this up, and possibly
appeal this one.  I guess if I'm the only one who thinks this is TRUE,
I won't bother.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 354
  Subject: Keys
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 22, 1997, 22:27h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is a Crime to bury the Keys defined in R 222 as a Treasure.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 222 says:

> After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute
> eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or
> the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> against that Player as outlined below.

The rule specifies the way in which the Keys may be disposed of.
Burying them a Treasure is not one of them.  The rule has precedence
over the Treasure rule, therefore it is a breaking of the rules to
bury them, hence a Crime.

The quoted passage also appears to enable giving a Key to any player
eligible to receive it, as snowgod attempted to do, thus snowgod's
action was probably legal, as this rule has precedence over the
Tradeable stuff as well.  Sorry about that snowgod.  Oh well, I
guess the CFJ should have been called.

What a mess.  If this CFJ is judged TRUE, Narf's burial would still
hold (but be a crime), due to the non-retractable error thing.  If it
is judged TRUE before Mar 23rd, snowgod's burial will be undone.  More
ugliness is that if it is found that snowgod's transfer to /dev/joe
is legal, we would be in the thread where it was eating /dev/joe's
gadgets, and he could do nothing about it.  That doesn't seem fair.

If it is judged FALSE, but still found that snowgod's transfer to
/dev/joe was legal (a possible case), we have the problem case above.

Note that this CFJ does not assert the legality of snowgod's
attempted trannsfer.  Hopefully the judge can sort all this out.

Calvin N Hobbes Reasoning:

As Malenkai outline above from his quote from that same rule, redistribution
after the _initial_ distribution is allowed so long as it is passed on to an
eligible player. He then goes on to say that the rule details ways to
dispose of the keys and that burying is not one of them, hence that is a 
crime.

Let's take a look at R1217 which explains who can find a treasure:

>Upon a player (who is not a map custodian with respect to the map in question)
>achieving the conditions for finding buried Treasure as specified by a Treasure
>Map, it is a duty of the map writer or a map custodian (if any exist) tomake this
>fact, and the map, public (once they become aware of the condition being
>achieved, and final act that lead to the condition being achieved is publically
>knowable). This action destroys the map, and the player who achieved the
>conditions receives the Treasure, and thus becomes the owner of its
>constituent entities (which are no longer considered "Treasure").

So there is only person that is not allowed to find a treasure and that is
the map custodian. Indeed, even the person who wrote the map (as the rule
goes on to explain) can find the treasure. R222 has different criteria to
decide who is eligible to receive a key or not, which means that a buried
Key could potentially be found by players who do not qualify. For example,
non-voting players, players who do not own the right objects, etc, as
outlined by R222.

Let us note, in R222 paragraph 4, sentence 4 which reads:

>Any Player possessing one or more Keys may attempt to give a Key to
>a non-eligible Player, but that Key shall be immediately returned to the
>Goose, and that Player shall no longer be eligible to receive any Keys
>for the duration of the Cycle.

Since burying a Key is not a certain way to transfer the Key to an eligible
player, it can be construed to be an attempt at giving it to a non-eligible
player. In fact, by burying a Key the player knows that not just players who
are eligible could now get it.

This means that although burying a Key is neither expressively allowed nor
disallowed by R222, it is covered by the sentence quoted as an _attempt_ to
give the Key to a non-eligible player. This means it is not a Crime to bury
a Key (since a player _may_ attempt). The effect is as outlined: the Key is
returned to the Goose and the player who buried (or rather attempted to
bury) the Key may not receive any more keys for the duration of this Cycle.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:31:12 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket

Does anyone know where I happened to acquire the "Big Ole Jug of Wine"?
It must have been quite a party...

Strider

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:36:53 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Swinger 

I speak on behalf of the (None Yet) party when i announce that Mohammed
hgas been admitted to the party, and furthermore that he has been appointed
to the position of swinger.

snowgod
who still needs to know the results of this months PHP

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:33:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 356 (CnH)

This makes it simple, CnH has been chosen for this one too.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 356
  Subject: Keys II
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 18, 1997, 1:33h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

When a Key defined in rule 222 is buried in a Treasure, it is transferred
to the Chartreuse Goose instead.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Always pressed for time, I cannot research this, but the reasoning of
CFJ 354 asserts the truth of the statement here.  Lets ask the
justice system to be sure, in keeping with not establishing game custom
in CFJ reasonings.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:42:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 357 (Red Barn)

Red Barn has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 357
  Subject: Keys III
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Red Barn (selected Mar 18, 1997, 1:44h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Silver Key (defined in rule 222), was transferred to /dev/joe on
March 8th, 1997.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

snowgod posted the following public message on that date:

> I am giving the Silver Key to /dev/joe.

I believe there is a reading of R 222 that would allow this transfer
without /dev/joe's ack (he never acked the transfer), and this should
be cleared up.  If this is true, it would have eaten a Gadget on March
15th.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:59:24 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond Quotes

Ackers: 4PFRobert at -.01 = -.04
/dev/joe: 93PFdevjoe at .18 + 2PFMalenkai at .01 = 16.76
fnord: 1PFmr at .06 + 1PFsnowgod at .21 + 1PFStrider at .21 + 1PFRobert 
at -.01 = .47
IdiotBoy: 5PFdevjoe at .18 + 5PFStrider at .21 + 5PFMalenkai at .01 + 
2PFMohammed at -.005 + 5PFRobert at -.01 = 1.94
Lestrade: 90PFLestrade at -.015 = -1.35
Malenkai: 79PFMalenkai at .01 + 5PFLestrade at -.015 = .715
Mohammed: 88PFMohammed at -.005 + 17PFNiccolo at .03 + 3PFsnowgod at
.21 	+ 5PFLestrade at -.015 + 5PFmr at .06 + 2PFdevjoe at .18 + 
2PFMalenkai at .01 = 2.185
mr cwm: 94PFmr at .06 = 5.64
Narf: 86PFNarf at .03 + 5PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFStrider at .21 = 4.63
Niccolo Flychuck: 50PFNiccolo at .03 + 20PFIdiot at .03 + 5PFsnowgod at 
.21 = 3.15
Robert Sevin: 85PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFNarf at  .03 
+ 2PFVynd at .12 + 1PFMalenkai at .01 = 1.62
snowgod: 54PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFMohammed at -.005 + 50PFIdiot at .03 + 
3PFNiccolo at .03 + 1PFMalenkai at .01 = 12.92
Strider: 84PFStrider at .21 + 10PFNarf at .03 = 17.94
Techno: 30PFNiccolo at .03 + 25PFsnowgod at .21 + 30PFIdiot at .03= 7.05
ThinMan: 10PFMalenkai at .01 = .10
Vynd: 98PFVynd at .12 = 11.76

Rounding, we get:

Ackers: -A$1
/dev/joe: +A$17
fnord: +A$1
IdiotBoy: +A$2
Lestrade: -A$2
Malenkai: +A$1
Mohammed: +A$3
mr cwm: +A$6
Narf: +A$5
Niccolo Flychuck: +A$4
Robert Sevin: +A$2
snowgod: +A$13
Strider: +A$18
Techno: +A$8
ThinMan +A$1
Vynd: +A$12

That's it, folks.  Please let me know if you spot any mistakes.

Strider
Bond-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:09:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 356 (CnH) 

>This makes it simple, CnH has been chosen for this one too.

I accept.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:35:59 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: trinket creation

Hope I've got it right this time...

I am creating a trinket with a value of A$10 called:

The Staff of the Scorekeeper/Postmaster/Demon King.

The Staff is about 8 feet tall and made of solid iron.  It is glowing red
and exudes a tremendous amount of heat.  It's top is in the form of a
mighty 8 armed demon with a gaping, tooth filled maw.  Rumor has it that
it can spit molten lead when it's master wills it.

I am now presenting The Staff of the Scorekeeper/Postmaster/Demon King to
/dev/joe.

Vynd -A$10  -The Staff of the Scorekeeper/Postmaster/Demon King

/dev/joe    +The Staff of the Scorekeeper/Postmaster/Demon King

                            -  Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:40:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Swinger

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I speak on behalf of the (None Yet) party when i announce that Mohammed
> hgas been admitted to the party, and furthermore that he has been appointed
> to the position of swinger.

So noted.

> 
> snowgod
> who still needs to know the results of this months PHP

There was none.

> 
> 

And Party Hall was filled with merry voices once again.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:18:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Private mail

To everyone who has sent me private mail and is still awaiting a reply...
Be patient.  I have been besieged with mail and (ugh!) homework.  I'll get
all caught up in a day or so.

sorry,
snowgod

mr cwm -> yes

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:23:48 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Private mail 

To everyone who has sent me private mail and is still awaiting a reply...
Be patient.  I have been besieged with mail and (ugh!) homework.  I'll get
all caught up in a day or so.

sorry,
snowgod

mr cwm -> yes

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:21:37 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PHP Poem 

This is a poem about a game
that requires me to write a poem
so awfully written, and so depressing
that you will delight when it has ended

This is a poem about a poem
which was mandated by a game
and a man named ptang1001001sos
who recieved seven points so I could write this.

snowgod
gaoler

exploring the stylistic possibilities

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:09:33 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 356 Verdict

CFJ 356 has been judged TRUE.  Given this verdict, the Silver and
Purple keys are around the neck of the Chartreuse Goose.  CFJ 357 
still has to be judged to see if the Silver key made it there before
or after the end of the cycle.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 356
  Subject: Keys II
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 18, 1997, 1:33h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

When a Key defined in rule 222 is buried in a Treasure, it is transferred
to the Chartreuse Goose instead.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Always pressed for time, I cannot research this, but the reasoning of
CFJ 354 asserts the truth of the statement here.  Lets ask the
justice system to be sure, in keeping with not establishing game custom
in CFJ reasonings.

CnH's Reasoning:

In accord with CFJ354, to bury a Key is not a crime, that much is certain.
Given the request for some reasoning behind this, I will attempt to provide
enough.

R1217 states:

>Upon a player (who is not a map custodian with respect to the map in question)
>achieving the conditions for finding buried Treasure as specified by a Treasure
>Map, it is a duty of the map writer or a map custodian (if any exist)tomake this
>fact, and the map, public (once they become aware of the condition being
>achieved, and final act that lead to the condition being achieved is publically
>knowable). This action destroys the map, and the player who achieved the
>conditions receives the Treasure, and thus becomes the owner of its
>constituent entities (which are no longer considered "Treasure").

This means that *all* players (voting and non-voting) are eligible to find a
treasure and thus take possession of it as allowed by R1217. Only the map
custodian may not get the treasure.

It should be noted that the following is true, from R222, paragraph 4, line
5: "Non-voting players are never eligible to receive Keys".

But as was pointed out, they are eligible to find treasures. There is an
inconsistency right there which makes the case for CFJ354 and would point to
a ruling of TRUE for this CFJ right here.

For the sake of being thorough, let us review the cases for each of the five
keys on by one though. As though this judge had nothing else to do.     : )

(1) The Gold Key may be given to any Player whose monetary account has a
positive number of A$.

R511, first line, clearly ascertains the fact that players can have a
negative balance, if for a short time (until the treasure enslaves them).
R510 is even more specific, allowing players to have a negative amount of
A$. Many people would also argue a case for zero being neither a positive
nor a negative number.

Therefore, it would be possible for a non eligible player to get the Golden
Key from a treasure.

(2) The Silver Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more 
Gadgets.

Some players do not, or may not own gadgets. Yet they may still find
treasures. Hence it would be possible for a non eligible player to get the
Silver Key from a treasure.

(3) The Bronze Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
Processing Chips.

Some players do not, or may not own processing chips. Yet they may still
find treasures. Hence it would be possible for a non eligible player to get
the Bronze Key from a treasure.

(4) The Chartreuse Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
of the following Acka Entities: Amber Bananas, the Great Trombone, the
little Lamb, and/or the Gumball.

Some players do not, or may not own any of these entities. Yet they may
still find treasures. Hence it would be possible for a non eligible player
to get the Chartreuse Key from a treasure.

(5) The Purple Key may be initially given to any Player. Once initially
distributed, the Purple Key may not be given away, but may be traded for any
tradable Acka-Entity.

Non-voting players are not allowed to get a key (from above in the rule so
precedence exists also to define "player" as meaning "voting player" in this
context right here). Yet they may still find treasures. Hence it would be
possible for a non eligible player to get the Purple Key from a treasure.

I also note that the map custodian is disallowed to get it by R1117 while
R222 may allow him to get it, meaning the sets are not equal. But that's
just a side note and curiosity.

As CFJ354 pointed out, R222 states:

>Any Player possessing one or more Keys may attempt to give a Key to
>a non-eligible Player, but that Key shall be immediately returned to the
>Goose, and that Player shall no longer be eligible to receive any Keys
>for the duration of the Cycle.

Given that we can show that burying a Key is an act which may lead to that
Key being given to a player this is ineligible to receive it in all cases,
it must be considered an attempt to give the Key to such a player. Hence, it
does not take place, but rather is returned immediately to the Goose and the
player that tried to bury the key may no longer receive a key for the
duration of the Cycle, as per R222.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:12:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 351 Verdict

CFJ 351 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 351
  Subject: Renaming Houses II
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 08, 1997, 22:11h EST)
2nd Judge: snowgod (selected Mar 11, 1997)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The name of the residence owned by Niccolo Flychuck is Niccolo
Flychuck's House

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

Mohammed posted  a message to the effect that e was renaming Niccolo
Flychuck's House. I argue that the house was not renamed, since the rule
the regulates house naming and renaming does not in fact allow Mohammed to
rename any house e likes. This rests on the other CFJ I submitted where I
argued that 'this' reffered only to the player's own house. That
interpretation implies that Mohammed's attempt to rename houses failed,
and therefore all the houses supposedly renamed in that posting retained
their original names. Specifically Niccolo Flychuck's House was not
renamed, and is still named Niccolo Flychuck's House.

snowgod's Reasoning:

CFJ 350 tells us that :

>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.

Technically, this sentence is lacking in the area of subject object
agreement and probably should have been invalid.  It is not a complete
statement which can honestly be judged true or false..  Read "In R252
section 1, in the sentence "quoted text" refers to the player's own
building."  By judging this statement TRUE, nothing about the name state of
ackanomic house was changed.

Therefore, what I am about to do is legal, and has the full force of
established case law behind it.

In his reasoning on CFJ 352 breadbox wrote:

>       While it seems fairly obvious that "A player may change the name of
>       this building" was intended to refer only to the "New player" who is
>       the house's owner, it is hardly the only, or even the most obvious,
>       interpretation. "A player" clearly means, in general, any player
>       (subject to other qualifiers which may appear in the specific
>       context).
>
>       Furthermore, "this building" clearly refers to the same building as
>       the "this building" in the previous sentence, which is the building
>       belonging to the new player, and not, say, the building belonging to
>       the player doing the renaming.
>
>       Considering that any of the following phrases:
>
>                  "The player may change the name of this building ..."
>
>                  "E may change the name of this building ..."
>
>                  "A player may change the name of their building ..."
>
>       would have been relatively unambiguous in only allowing a player to
>       rename the building that was given to them, the rule as it stands
>       must be understood as giving any player the ability to rename any
>       building that was bequeathed to anyone by this rule.

A statement that I fully agree with, and a conclusion that I would have
arrived at on my own, had I not had breadbox's excellent legal work already
laid out for me.

I believe the rules allow, albiet unintentionally, for Mohammed to change
the name of Niccolo Flychuck's house, and am therefore returning a verdict
of FALSE on CFJ 351.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:50:49 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Trinket Creation 

I am creating a trinket with a value of A$10 called Rene.

Rene is a statue, roughly three feet high, of Descartes, sitting in the
Royal Gardens at Versailles and pondering what makes us men and not mice,
and other things. It is an exquisitely crafted statue, made to the most
exacting standards of craftsmanship, except that he's got a third arm, which
is actually quite unisghtly despite its utility and really mucks the whole
thing up.

You can call me Al -A$10  +Rene

(I hope I got this right...:v)

You can call me Al
                                     __________
                                    /          \
                                   /            \
                                  |   o     o    |
                                  |    |   |     |
                             ----------|   |----------
                             -----------\_/-----------
                           [email-masked]
                             -------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:27:53 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: CFJ 357 (Red Barn) 

At 1:42 AM on 3/18/97, Malenkai wrote:

> Red Barn has been chosen.
>
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 357
>   Subject: Keys III
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: Red Barn (selected Mar 18, 1997, 1:44h EST)
> Judgement:

  I accept judgement (do I have to do that?).

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:49:46 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 355 (fnord)

Malenkai writes:
> fnord has been chosen.

I accept.

fnord

- -- 
Michael J. Thomas                              [email-masked]
"Opinions are falling like drops of rain"  In that case, I'm in a downpour!

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:30:28 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato (actualy, Tailor)

Malenkai writes:
> fnord receives the magic potato and is beldins tailor
Woo-hoo!

Hmmm... looking at the webpages, there appears to be something
wrong with Rule 940.  The list of changes indicates that breadbox changed
the word 'transferred' to the word 'removed', however, that change is
not actually reflected in the Rule itself.  Am I missing
something, or should the Rule text actually contain 'removed'?

fnord

- -- 
Michael J. Thomas                              [email-masked]
"Opinions are falling like drops of rain"  In that case, I'm in a downpour!

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:33:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court)

As expected (at least by me), CFJ 356 was appealed by ThinMan (but is
there any way we could turn arguing over CFJ 354 into a duel? :)).
  
ThinMan's reasoning is at the end of the the history of the CFJ.  There
is no court fee.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 356
  Subject: Keys II
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 18, 1997, 1:33h EST)
Judgement: TRUE
   Appeal:

Statement:

When a Key defined in rule 222 is buried in a Treasure, it is transferred
to the Chartreuse Goose instead.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Always pressed for time, I cannot research this, but the reasoning of
CFJ 354 asserts the truth of the statement here.  Lets ask the
justice system to be sure, in keeping with not establishing game custom
in CFJ reasonings.

CnH's Reasoning:

In accord with CFJ354, to bury a Key is not a crime, that much is certain.
Given the request for some reasoning behind this, I will attempt to provide
enough.

R1217 states:

>Upon a player (who is not a map custodian with respect to the map in question)
>achieving the conditions for finding buried Treasure as specified by a Treasure
>Map, it is a duty of the map writer or a map custodian (if any exist)tomake this
>fact, and the map, public (once they become aware of the condition being
>achieved, and final act that lead to the condition being achieved is publically
>knowable). This action destroys the map, and the player who achieved the
>conditions receives the Treasure, and thus becomes the owner of its
>constituent entities (which are no longer considered "Treasure").

This means that *all* players (voting and non-voting) are eligible to find a
treasure and thus take possession of it as allowed by R1217. Only the map
custodian may not get the treasure.

It should be noted that the following is true, from R222, paragraph 4, line
5: "Non-voting players are never eligible to receive Keys".

But as was pointed out, they are eligible to find treasures. There is an
inconsistency right there which makes the case for CFJ354 and would point to
a ruling of TRUE for this CFJ right here.

For the sake of being thorough, let us review the cases for each of the five
keys on by one though. As though this judge had nothing else to do.     : )

(1) The Gold Key may be given to any Player whose monetary account has a
positive number of A$.

R511, first line, clearly ascertains the fact that players can have a
negative balance, if for a short time (until the treasure enslaves them).
R510 is even more specific, allowing players to have a negative amount of
A$. Many people would also argue a case for zero being neither a positive
nor a negative number.

Therefore, it would be possible for a non eligible player to get the Golden
Key from a treasure.

(2) The Silver Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
Gadgets.

Some players do not, or may not own gadgets. Yet they may still find
treasures. Hence it would be possible for a non eligible player to get the
Silver Key from a treasure.

(3) The Bronze Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
Processing Chips.

Some players do not, or may not own processing chips. Yet they may still
find treasures. Hence it would be possible for a non eligible player to get
the Bronze Key from a treasure.

(4) The Chartreuse Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
of the following Acka Entities: Amber Bananas, the Great Trombone, the
little Lamb, and/or the Gumball.

Some players do not, or may not own any of these entities. Yet they may
still find treasures. Hence it would be possible for a non eligible player
to get the Chartreuse Key from a treasure.

(5) The Purple Key may be initially given to any Player. Once initially
distributed, the Purple Key may not be given away, but may be traded for any
tradable Acka-Entity.

Non-voting players are not allowed to get a key (from above in the rule so
precedence exists also to define "player" as meaning "voting player" in this
context right here). Yet they may still find treasures. Hence it would be
possible for a non eligible player to get the Purple Key from a treasure.

I also note that the map custodian is disallowed to get it by R1117 while
R222 may allow him to get it, meaning the sets are not equal. But that's
just a side note and curiosity.

As CFJ354 pointed out, R222 states:

>Any Player possessing one or more Keys may attempt to give a Key to
>a non-eligible Player, but that Key shall be immediately returned to the
>Goose, and that Player shall no longer be eligible to receive any Keys
>for the duration of the Cycle.

Given that we can show that burying a Key is an act which may lead to that
Key being given to a player this is ineligible to receive it in all cases,
it must be considered an attempt to give the Key to such a player. Hence, it
does not take place, but rather is returned immediately to the Goose and the
player that tried to bury the key may no longer receive a key for the
duration of the Cycle, as per R222.

ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:

I claim that CnH has applied an incorrect test to the legal issues
pertaining to CFJ 356.  His comments in the CFJ 354 reasoning also
utilize the invalid test, although it also happens to lead to the
correct (IMO) verdict there.

CnH's opinions on CFJ 354 and CFJ 356 hinged on the concept that
burying one of the Keys as a treasure constitutes an attempt to give
it to an ineligible player.  In the general case, I find CnH's
argument unsatisfactory -- the fact that an ineligible player _may_
find the treasure is shaky grounds for making the burying of it
constitute an attempt to give it to such a player.

Moreover, and of particular relevance to this case, is the _particular_
instance at issue.  snowgod published the following text, purported to
be the map to his Silver Key treasure: "The silver key will be found by
the first players wit two or more entities who wants to possess, and
wants to love it, and hug it, and call it george."  Suppose that this
is, indeed, the correct map to the treasure.  The conditions established
therein specifically attempt to prevent an ineligible player from
finding the treasure.  (They miss the non-voting exception, though.)  It
is clearly possible to write a map to a treasure containing a Key such
that no ineligible player can find it, and burying a Key as part of a
treasure with such a map cannot be construed as an attempt to give it to
an ineligible player.

It is impossible to make a general, true statement about whether burying

a Key as treasure causes it to be transferred to the Chartreuse Goose,
because it depends on the map.  Some conceivable treasure maps could be
construed as specific attempts to put a Key into the hands of an
ineligible player; some could not possibly be construed as attempts to
put a Key in the hands of an ineligible player; most, IMO, cannot
clearly be construed as such an attempt, even though they leave open
the possibility of an ineligible player coming into possession of a Key.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:36:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vynd/Robert Sevin Transaction Part 2

Robert Sevin wrote:
> 
> Here is the second part of the transaction between Vynd and I that
> you missed...
> 
> Robert Sevin

Thanks, but I do not believe I missed that one :)

I have that I missed the mr cwm/Narf trade, and a typo on snowgod's
PFMohammed holdings.  At least I have the PFVynd on your record.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 20:40:02 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Finance Log

If anyone is interested, I have put the finance log at

http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/finance.txt

so you can check for errors/omissions.  I do not feel like mailing
this to the list.  Its kinda ugly, but I figured I'd make it public
anyway.

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:23:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFV.

Hi, I'm returning from vacation.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:34:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Keys

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Robert Sevin's key eats another A$7.
> ThinMan's key eats another Processing Chip.
> 
> Robert Sevin -7 keys
> Niccolo -PF +15
> IB -15 +PF
> 

Huh?

IB

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:06:05 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: hitchikers guide to Ackanomic 

Douglas Adams will be speaking to my non-fiction workshop tommorow.  If
anyone has any questions they would like me to ask (he will be discussing
his fiction too), let me know and I will pass them along.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:32:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court) 

>As expected (at least by me), CFJ 356 was appealed by ThinMan (but is
>there any way we could turn arguing over CFJ 354 into a duel? :)).

Hmmm.    : )

May it please the court, I will respond.

>ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:
>
>I claim that CnH has applied an incorrect test to the legal issues
>pertaining to CFJ 356.  His comments in the CFJ 354 reasoning also
>utilize the invalid test, although it also happens to lead to the
>correct (IMO) verdict there.

I note that the reasoning is irrelevent and no part of the official CFJ.
While an appeal is to overturn a *faulty* decision. An appeal for the sake
of pointing an argument wrong, to have what the appealing player considers a
right judgement overturned, is, imho, silly. No offense meant, I've always
though of silly as something that's ok: you know me.

This is because of R214:

>A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and 
>arguments, but any such reasons and arguments form 
>no part of the official Judgement itself. 

But back to what ThinMan said.

>CnH's opinions on CFJ 354 and CFJ 356 hinged on the concept that
>burying one of the Keys as a treasure constitutes an attempt to give
>it to an ineligible player.  In the general case, I find CnH's
>argument unsatisfactory -- the fact that an ineligible player _may_
>find the treasure is shaky grounds for making the burying of it
>constitute an attempt to give it to such a player.

Let's take an example from RL. If I take a gun and shoot it randomly,
killing someone, the law will consider that pulling the trigger is an
attempt to hurt someone. That is pretty logical. Why else was I pulling the
trigger? Just to shoot the gun? But then there safer places to do it if I
had no intention of harming anyone. Same for the keys. Saying that it's just
a possibility, not a certainty, that a non elligible player may get it
proves the point about an _attempt_, It could never be an attempt, on the
other hand, if there was no way the action could lead to the key falling in
the "wrong" hands. More on this (a lot lot more) later.

>Moreover, and of particular relevance to this case, is the _particular_
>instance at issue.  snowgod published the following text, purported to
>be the map to his Silver Key treasure: "The silver key will be found by
>the first players wit two or more entities who wants to possess, and
>wants to love it, and hug it, and call it george."  Suppose that this
>is, indeed, the correct map to the treasure.  The conditions established
>therein specifically attempt to prevent an ineligible player from
>finding the treasure.  (They miss the non-voting exception, though.)  It
>is clearly possible to write a map to a treasure containing a Key such
>that no ineligible player can find it, and burying a Key as part of a
>treasure with such a map cannot be construed as an attempt to give it to
>an ineligible player.

Simply "burying the key", as the CFJ was worded, does not talk of any
restrictions imposed implicitly. While there may be restrictions in the map,
that has no guarantees in the rule set. Indeed, what if the rules are
changed? Can one change the map also? So a player could make the map that
would be supposedly legal (but I say it's not), then changes the rules so
that it is no longer legal. (by legal I mean "passing to an eligible
player"). That is obviously an attempt as described in the R222.

The CFJ must be made in accord with the Rules and only what's in the rules.
Rule 215/1 
"Judgements Must Accord With The Rules". There can be no safety net to
ensure someone does a "legal" map. Indeed, I have shown in the previous
paragraph that this it is possible to still make it illegal.

But back to my first point. To say that there could be a map that's legal
and therefore the ruling cannot be determined is not quite right. The ruling
is to be based on the statement, and that statement included only "buying as
treasure". To have it _possibly_ undertermined, it would have required
reading "burying as treasure with a map that restricts to only eligible
players". And as I have shown, that could still be interpreted (since it is
possible) as an attempt to give the key to someone that is not eligible.

The key [pun] is that "attempt" is a very vague word. What's an attempt? An
attempt is something that is not certain to work. It's something that may or
may not work. It is something that may lead to some result. I have clearly
shown that burying can be considered such an attempt because it can always
lead to the result of getting the key into the hands of someone who is not
elligible.

Now, a real test of the validity of the CFJ would be to ask for a ruling on
what an "attempt" is in Acka. But then CFJ354 and 356 could be interpreted
as already defining it.

>It is impossible to make a general, true statement about whether burying
>a Key as treasure causes it to be transferred to the Chartreuse Goose,
>because it depends on the map.  Some conceivable treasure maps could be
>construed as specific attempts to put a Key into the hands of an
>ineligible player; some could not possibly be construed as attempts to
>put a Key in the hands of an ineligible player; most, IMO, cannot
>clearly be construed as such an attempt, even though they leave open
>the possibility of an ineligible player coming into possession of a Key.

IMHO, it can still be considered as an attempt to pass it on to someone who
has no legitimate claim to it, as outlined below. (Sorry for repeating
myself, my example does cover a lot and I'm just trying to answer all your
points)

I'll give a concrete example. The Silver Key (since we are talking about it)
requires the recipient to have 1 or more gadgets. All right, so I bury it,
taking care of that and the non-voting player stuff in the map (plus whatever).

I get the rule changed to read, for the Silver Key, that there can be no
player that are eligible. But the map is the map. And then, someone could
find it (indeed I could find it myself), and obviously that someone that is
not eligible. Burying does not "freeze" the rules.

So are there any ways that are legitimate? Can't everything be considered an
attempt? No. R222 describes ways in which the transfer may take place
immediately (with precedence over the gift, money rules to make it
instantaneous). So giving it to an eligible player as per the rule is always
legitimate. The rule could change later to say something about transfers,
those that are already done and concluded are not affected, since it cannot
be retroactive. By R103/10, "Proposals and Rule Changes", last paragraph
reads: "No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect. A rule change that would have effects
retroactive to before the time of its application is invalid."

I hope this clears things up about the questions raised. As I say, I ruled
on a specific case and the point made in the argument presented by ThinMan
is a slightly different one that has no guarantees in the rule set. And even
then, I believe I have shown that it can still be construed as an attempt.

Some may criticize may interpretation of "attempt", but I have made the best
attempt [grin] I could to use it in accord with the english language and the
spirit of the game. (As per R215/1)

For those of you who read up to down here, you must be interested in the
subject, so let me mention the point raised about what the key's effects do
to players who buried them. I will refer to R1217 which states that:

>Immediately after this announcement, the player ceases to own the 
>Treasure; it is considered "buried" or "hidden", and is unowned. 
>Buried Treasure is not considered part of the Treasury. 

I note that burying doesn't actually take place, but that doesn't matter,
the anouncement (which is all that matters) still takes place (it is what
determines the notorious "attempt" has been made). And the Goose gets it
instead of it being "buried".

Now turning back to R222, we see that for the Bronze, Silver and Gold keys,
the side effects are explicitely taking place on the *owning* player. Since
the player no longer owns it, no penalty takes place. There are no similar
"penalty" side effects for the other 2 keys.

Calvin N Hobbes
so I memorize rules: shoot me

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #18
******************************