Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #42
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Thursday, April 10 1997       Volume 02 : Number 042

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:03:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Several Things (TMBG, Web-Harfing, etc) 

>> This was a
>> while back, but then my sense of time goes to hell once a semester starts.
>	Wow, so does mine.

Is that a student thing or should we start taking some sort of medication? I
sure hope it's not the first stage of senility. Next thing you know I won't
remember what I've just said. I sure hope it's not the first stage of
senility.                  [grin?]

>	Anyway, if there are problems now it's often because there 
>was a rule change I didn't notice.  I just fixed tammany to accept small 
>bribes.  If anyone tried to bribe tammany and got an error message from 
>the bot, I suggest you try it again before the results go out.  The bot 
>has seen the light.  :o)

Alleluia!

>> Blame the unix you are running under. Unix can always be blamed. It was
>> created by programers to have something to blame for bugs.
>	*grin*  This goes double for DEC...

Wow. Praise to the Golden Frog! A working program on a DEC? And I didn't
believe in miracles.   ; )

>> >	Calvin's vote doesn't count because I distributed his proposal 
>> >illegally the first time.
>> Never argued it did. I don't think. I only explained why I didn't get my
>> vote recorded on it.
>	Agreed; I just wanted to quell any fears of.. er, 
>Platonic/accepted game state discrepancies.  Or whatever.  :o)

Ha! I think a lol or rotfl should be inserted here:

lol

Calvin N Hobbes
proud to be the evil twin of his evil twins

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:13:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: W-File Case #1 

Mohammed will be the next krykec.

I note that at least one scientist will need to write a refuting report
containing the following phrases: "violates the laws of physics" and "a claw
is a claw and nobody has seen a talking claw".

Also, "it is good form for all players to sneer publicly at the contents of
the report."

Calvin N Hobbes
wondering whose job it is to find TMBG references in the rules

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:25:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: W-File Case #1

> Calvin N Hobbes
> wondering whose job it is to find TMBG references in the rules

One day I started linking them to the lyrics pages on www.tmbg.com but
didn't come anywhere close to completing the job.

The links that exist:

Blue Thing
Rocks to wind a string around (vending machine and pros. forehead rule)
Prosthetic Foreheads
Evil Twins
I Palindrome I
Can't shake the devil's hand and then say you're only kidding
Chess Piece Face

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:35:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: W-File Case #1 

>> Calvin N Hobbes
>> wondering whose job it is to find TMBG references in the rules
>
>One day I started linking them to the lyrics pages on www.tmbg.com but
>didn't come anywhere close to completing the job.
>
>The links that exist:
>
>Blue Thing
>Rocks to wind a string around (vending machine and pros. forehead rule)
>Prosthetic Foreheads
>Evil Twins
>I Palindrome I
>Can't shake the devil's hand and then say you're only kidding
>Chess Piece Face

You've started a good thing (tm). A very good thing. When I saw the links,
it prompted me to start reading the whole rule set again just to find what
was underlined. I have no life.

I was asking because "a claw is a claw and no one has ever seen a talking
claw" from TMBG. It's the Mr Claw song.

Calvin N Hobbes
who only listens to TMBG when at an other player's house
(who shall remain unnamed, the other player, not the house or me   : )

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 01:02:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: W-File Case #1

> One day I started linking them to the lyrics pages on www.tmbg.com but
> didn't come anywhere close to completing the job.

I noticed this this morning; that's insanely cool.  I just discovered 
dial-a-song a few days before.

Rule 1119's title needs to be linked (I didn't come back as a bag of 
groceries).  I'm particularly fond of that song.

- -- Mohammed
still alive
too many things to do
wishing for int roots (const complex* coeffs, int degr, complex* roots);

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:20:54 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> So in other words, the earth is flat was at one time 'truth'.  Now the

While besides the point, you'd have to accept the unfounded myth that
until a few centuries ago educated people believed that the earth was
flat.

> 'truth' is that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light.  That
> sort of 'truth' does not sit well with a Platonist like me.  This is 
> another difference.  There is a 'true' shape of the earth, we may or may
> not have discovered it yet.

It has to with both perception, accuracy of measurement, and whether
things are mesaurable at all
> 
> > the Platonist version would be that our perception of truth changes
> > over time; but I think it's far more fun to say that truth is changing :)
> 
> I think its more that terminology, though, its an attitude.  I remember
> when I first started reading Roger Penrose (a mathematical physicist and
> Platonist), and *thinking* that way was so much clearer.  How's that
> for useless BWG :)

I'd suggest reading Feinman's "The nature of physical law" (something
similar at least) because this is what this bit of the disucssion has
become.
The universe is not governed by laws, laws of nature are nothing more than 
our formulation of our observations. 

While I generally prefer platonism in interpreting Ackanomic, I think
there is a flaw that must be addressed. Ackanomic is not mathematics. In
mathematics new theorems are said to be discovered rather than invented,
thus making mathematicians Platonic.
In Acka new rules are not discovered, but created, and both rules and
ammendments change the ruleset, so unlike mathematics, ackanomic is a
moving target.

> 
> > Funnily enough, although it's impossible to prove that there is no
> > God,
> 
> That statement has always bothered me.  I do not find it inconceivable
> that the entire Platonic "game state" is knowable.

I think contemporary physics pretty much rules that out.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:08:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: wilma crash

wilma had another crash; it started reporting hard drive errors around 3AM
and sendmail managed to keep going until almost 8 AM (CDT).  There are a
half-dozen messages in the queue undelivered or only partially delivered,
but sendmail's queue directory was "fixed" by the file system check, dumping
them all into lost+found with their inode numbers as their names.  (For those
DOS users out there, this is the unix equivalent of when you run scandisk and
all the lost files get renamed FILE0001, etc.)

I will put them back as soon as I get figure out how to extract the
right filenames from the header files... or maybe just copy everything
ackanomic-looking and send it to the main list if that proves to be too
difficult.

This morning my crash is accompanied by a grinding power supply fan sound,
so I'm wondering if perhaps that is my problem instead of the hard drive
itself...

I'll be working on problems today so wilma may be down for short periods
today.

/dev/joe
wilma-master

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

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 08:55:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

> I think contemporary physics pretty much rules that out.

"contemporaty physics" once said the stars revolved around the earth.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:38:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: crashed mail restored

The mail which was not fully delivered due to the crash this morning
has been restored and is in the process of being delivered by sendmail.

Since I had to match up message headers and bodies, I've already read all
the messages. :-)  There are 2 messages from malenkai, 2 from thinman,
and 3 from idiotboy, all discussion except thinman's ping message.

As I write this, Malenkai's first message (about "contemporary physics")
has already been delivered.

/dev/joe
Postmaster

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The H man and Godel

I'm glad to see that breadbox has read "Godel, Escher and Bach"... a
truly amazing book.  If you haven't read it, you certainly should.

I'm a math person, so it naturally interests me.  But anyone who loves
word games, music, or puzzles would go for it, too.  (I think.)

I am not a paid spokesmodel-
IB
BWG

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

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 08:53:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TMBwG

breadbox wrote:

[about Godel's Theorem...]

I don't remember what this subject line started out
as, but I rememeber it was quite different than what it
is heading towards.... :)

Malenkai
not part of the conspiracy

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:36:53 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: W-File Case #1

> One day I started linking them to the lyrics pages on www.tmbg.com but
> didn't come anywhere close to completing the job.
> 
> The links that exist:
> 
[...]

> Evil Twins
> 
[...]

Evil Twins are a TMBG reference?  No wonder they got accepted into our
rules.  When I first introduced the idea (informally) into Acka, I had
no idea that it was connected in any way with the official band.

ThinMan
The original Evil Twin
snowgod's Evil Twin
/dev/joe's Evil Twin

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:59:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

>
>"contemporaty physics" once said the stars revolved around the earth.
>

Don't they?  I mean, the mathematical description of the stars revolving
around the Earth is quite cumbersome and rather unenlightening, but that
doesn't mean they don't do it.  

- -mr cwm
 who got a bit annoyed once when a student said his lecture was boring
 because they'd already learned all about the geocentric and heliocentric
 theories of the universe in high school, and thus was prompted to think
 about it a little harder than usual

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > We're really getting off the track of where I thought you were going with
> > this.  Are you just making up these levels as you go?  Why are pi and 0 on
> > two different levels?  What is g(g(x))?
> 	Yes, I'm making up the levels as I go.  But they only changed once. :o)
> 	pi and 0 are not on two different levels.
> 	g(g(x)) is (g . g)(x)
> 	Or (g^2)(x) if you prefer it.
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

So g is acting on itself?  Uh-oh!  I'll bet I could build some self
reference in right there!

IB

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> Don't they?  I mean, the mathematical description of the stars revolving
> around the Earth is quite cumbersome and rather unenlightening, but that
> doesn't mean they don't do it.  
> 

In fact, I have a mathematical model where the Universe revolves around 
me.  I like to think it's elegant.

IB
center of the Universe

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:58:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

> > > We're really getting off the track of where I thought you were going with
> > > this.  Are you just making up these levels as you go?  Why are pi and 0 on
> > > two different levels?  What is g(g(x))?
> > 	Yes, I'm making up the levels as I go.  But they only changed once. :o)
> > 	pi and 0 are not on two different levels.
> > 	g(g(x)) is (g . g)(x)
> > 	Or (g^2)(x) if you prefer it.
> 
> So g is acting on itself?
	No.  g can only perform operations on things like x.  g(g) is 
meaningless.  g(g(x)) is meaningful because g(x) is not the same type of 
object as g is; instead it is the same type of object as x is.

> Uh-oh!  I'll bet I could build some self reference in right there!
	Well, it would take some work.  But I do see where breadbox's
argument is going.  What I don't see is how to do it without set
negation... 

Or, suppose my system uses modulo 1000000000 math.  obviously the finite
set of numbers can't map to the infinite set of statements that can be
built to describe them... or can it?

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

>> Uh-oh!  I'll bet I could build some self reference in right there!
> 	Well, it would take some work.  But I do see where breadbox's
> argument is going.  What I don't see is how to do it without set
> negation... 

Peano arithmetic does not include sets, just the non-negative
integers. I'm relatively certain that Godel's application of the
Incompleteness Theorem to Peano arithmetic makes no use of sets or
operations on sets.

> Or, suppose my system uses modulo 1000000000 math.  obviously the finite
> set of numbers can't map to the infinite set of statements that can be
> built to describe them... or can it?

If you don't have an infinite set of numbers, then you have a system
that is much, much simpler than Peano arithmetic (as simple as that
is). It would in fact not be "sufficiently complex" enough for Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem to apply to it, and thus proving every True
statement in that system would be possible. (It would probably also be
rather uninteresting.)

b

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:37:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: W-File Case #1 

>Evil Twins are a TMBG reference?  No wonder they got accepted into our
>rules.  When I first introduced the idea (informally) into Acka, I had
>no idea that it was connected in any way with the official band.

I should say even as its author I had no idea myself. The inspiration for
the rule was a discussion that took place at least 4 months ago, probably
later even, which involved snowgod, myself and a few other people. I'm not
sure if that was in the Church, my memory manager doesn't allow me to
retrieve details.

>ThinMan
>The original Evil Twin
>snowgod's Evil Twin
>/dev/joe's Evil Twin

Calvin N Hobbes
wondering if someone will finally sneer at report #1

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

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:34:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 369 Verdict

CFJ 369 has been judged FALSE.  Fortunately that is the thread we have
been playing.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 369
  Subject: Dealing with the Paranormal
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: breadbox (selected Apr 02, 1997, 23:11h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Proposal 1866 was not accepted.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Niccolo Flychuck used a paranormal power in casting a Bonus Vote
on that proposal.  From R 261, which has precedence over the Bonus
Vote rule (317):

> If a player has made use of a Paranormal Power then that player
> (also called Krykec for the purposes of this rule) is taken in for
> questioning. Krykec will be injected with an alien sedative which
> destroys one of her doses of psi-enhancer if she has at least one,
> and which otherwise removes whichever Paranoral Power that player has
> most recently used.

The key here is the rendering of 'removes whichever Paranormal Power
[...]'.  Certainly the BV is the power in question.  So what happens when
it is 'removed'?  Is it removed from the game, without counting on the
proposal, or after it is counted on the proposal?  Given rule 261's
precedence over the BV rule, perhaps a prickly problem for the judge.

That reading seems more questionable; it is reasonable that Mold and
Scold destroy the vote after it has its effect, but a reading where the
bonus vote is destroyed before it counts on the proposal is there too.
According to rule 317, the BV has an effect when it is e-mailed to the
Tabulator; its only a problem if R 261 is construed to be in conflict
with that (ie, Mold & Scold's destruction of it has precedence over its
effect, or comes *before* its effect is recorded).

If the bonus vote did not count on the proposal, the results were 9 in
favor, 5 against, resulting in failure and a verdict of true.

Vynd pointed this whole thing out on IRC.  I also note, that from the
time Niccolo Flychuck submitted that bonus vote to the Tabulator, he
was abducted by the W-File pair for 48 hours, and is subject to the
restrictions and provisions in rule 261.  Since only he and the Tabulator
know when that was, they should make sure the rule is complied with.

breadbox's Reasoning:

This is indeed a bit sticky. For this judge, the question comes down
to whether a Bonus Vote is viewed as: a) something that changes from a
Bonus Vote into a vote (i.e., a vote on a proposal), or: b) something
that allows a player to have a second vote (i.e., the ability to
vote). Treating Bonus Votes as the former would seem to imply that the
W-File's actions would destroy the vote on the proposal as well, while
the latter interpretation would favor the vote surviving the removal
of the Bonus Vote.

After reading the rules in question several times, I find that they
lean towards the interpretation of a Bonus Vote being a "right to two
votes" (though not obviously so). One example: Rule 317 states that,
under more normal circumstances, a Bonus Vote that has been used to
cast a vote is not destroyed until the Tabulator has released the
voting results. Such a clause is unnecessary and redundant when Bonus
Votes are viewed as in (a), but makes perfect sense under
interpretation (b).

This is the interpretation that I find most favored by the spirit of
the game as well.

Thus, Niccolo Flychuck's Bonus Vote, though destroyed before the
voting results were released, did in fact submit a vote in favor of
Proposal 1866.

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

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:42:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 368 (ThinMan)

Apr 09 20:42 EDT: -10 Ackers: did not deliver verdict on CFJ 368

Note that the CFJ ineligibility list can be found off of the cotc
page, or at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackacil.txt

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 368
  Subject: Single Nouns
Initiator: IdiotBoy
    Judge: Ackers (selected Mar 31, 1997, 19:14h EST)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (assigned Apr 09, 1997, 20:42h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

For the purposes of Rule 596 (Mad Scientist), a capitalized entity is a
"single noun."

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

This hasn't quite come up yet, but I want some clarification before it
potentially does.

If someone brings the Mad Scientist a part from the rules related to the Fat
Lady, can they claim that they wish to replace "Fat Lady" with
<monster-name>?

I personally, believe they can, but I'd like something definitive.

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

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:36:45 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Duels,  Pseudo.

Ackanomians:

Robert Sevin,  a feared and respected Player,  has gone too far.  Calling
a Duel against someone who isn't even a Player emself!  How ludicrous. 
And to call that Duel against someone like myself,  even more ludicrous! 
No one in Acka has more respect or admiration for Harf than I.  It was I
who wrote the first Proposal to be officially recognised as Harfy when
the Harfmeister Rule was written.  (JRALB,  which didn't pass,  but was
Harfy nonetheless).  It was I that defendefd Ackanomic's Harfiness to the
Pumpkin Patch when they began to feel threatened  By Acka's seemingly
strange customs.  I challenge anyone to find another Player owning a
Champions' Cloak with as many failed Proposals (by ratio) than I.  Harf
is the very reason that I returneed to Acka,  even though it's only as an
observer for now.  I have been chided for not returning to the Patch nor
FRC since recovering my email.

All that being said,  I stand by my statement that created this
situation.  Anyone doubting that what goes on in RL is not harfier than
harf;  if no one thinks that people can dream up stranger realities than
our Rules should give Mr.  Chatham a buzz.  Check out the Nomic Bulletin
Board run by Doug and check out eir link to "Great Conspiracies".  You'll
either be ROTFL,  or scared out of your wits at what passes for
legitimate philosophy out there.

Habeus Corpus
who doesn't deserve a sig file yet

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:23:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duels,  Pseudo. 

>Habeus Corpus
>who doesn't deserve a sig file yet

So wrong. Should be replaced by:

Habeus Corpus
maker of prima harf proposal,
envoy=E9 extraodinaire to Pumpkin Patch Nomic,
upgrader of the Internomic Interface,
creator the Crystal Chalice victory condition
and hence of all harf that ensued from it,
creator of the almight processing chips,
frinker and creator of the bartender,
who first thought of grabbing donkeys
of admiring them, of covering them,
acclaimed harf meister with a harfy sig

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

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 21:25:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

Calvin N Hobbes has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 371
  Subject: Paranormal Paradox
Initiator: breadbox
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Apr 09, 1997, 21:25h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

If Krycek releases a W-File Case report, AND if there exists more than
one Scientist to whom the clause requiring the writing of a refuting
report applies, THEN it is equally legal and illegal for each
Scientist Scientist to write no such report.

breadbox's Reasoning:

Rule 261 states:

 At least one Scientist must write a refuting report that should
 contain the phrases 'violates the laws of physics' and 'a claw is a
 claw and nobody has seen a talking claw'.

The use of the word "must" indicates that for this to not happen is a
breaking of the rules.

(It is therefore also a Crime by Rule 713: a Crime, but with no
perpetrator. It would be impossible to convict any of the Scientists,
as a CFCJ requires that a single player be named as having broken the
rules. Note that there is no conflict here, since nowhere do the rules
require someone to be eligible for conviction every time a Crime is
committed. I mention this only to emphasize that this is not the seat
of the paradox.)

Now, suppose that you are one of the Scientists. None of the other
Scientists have written a report refuting Krycek's report. Perhaps the
other Scientists have even publically stated that they will not write
the report. Therefore, if you do not write such a report, the rules
get broken. But did you break the rules? The rules do not require you
personally to write a report. In fact, they do not require any
Scientist, in particular, to write a report.

But they *do* require that at least one Scientist write a report. So
perhaps you did break the rules. Or perhaps one could argue that all
of the Scientists did, as a group: that the "Scientific Community" has
broken the rules. But regardless of such semantic quibbling, all of
the Scientists, at all times, were obeying the rules! Never was it
impermissible for you, or any other Scientist, to choose to not write
that report. It seems that nobody has violated the rule. But the rule
has still been disobeyed, which is impermissible.

If it could be assumed that all but one of the Scientists will not
write a report, then it is clear that the remaining Scientist must
write the report. To do otherwise would be illegal. But that
assumption is not a given, nor does it become one at any time. For any
Scientist to not write a report is always a legal act.

And yet, it is still illegal for all of the Scientists to so act.
Someone must write that damned report. But how can this be, when it is
never illegal for any player to choose not to?

The situation is such that every player can obey the rules, and yet
the rules are nonetheless broken. In short, the act of not writing a
report - a report that the rules demand be written - is, for each and
every Scientist, an action that is equally legal and illegal.

As a formality, I note that this is a Paradox Win CFJ, and if judged
True the submitter will win the current Cycle.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:15:47 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> While besides the point, you'd have to accept the unfounded myth that
> until a few centuries ago educated people believed that the earth was
> flat.

I think that before Copernicus (or whichever heretic first said that
the Earth is round), this is likely to be 'true'. Although I did
read about a rather lovely theory that the Earth was shaped like a
bored apple, that when you got to one of the poles, you'd fall over
the edge, but inside would be lots of beautiful cities and
enlightened people. 

> > 'truth' is that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light. That 
> > sort of 'truth' does not sit well with a Platonist like me. This is 
> > another difference.  There is a 'true' shape of the earth, we may or may 
> > not have discovered it yet.
>
> It has to with both perception, accuracy of measurement, and whether
> things are mesaurable at all
>
> While I generally prefer platonism in interpreting Ackanomic, I think
> there is a flaw that must be addressed. Ackanomic is not mathematics. In
> mathematics new theorems are said to be discovered rather than invented,
> thus making mathematicians Platonic.
> In Acka new rules are not discovered, but created, and both rules and
> ammendments change the ruleset, so unlike mathematics, ackanomic is a
> moving target.

Still, given that the rules themselves are not in question, Acka
could still be Platonic. The details of the Platonic system are
changing over time, but being a moving target doesn't in itself rule
out a Platonic interpretation for any given point in time. I agree
with this though: 

> laws of nature are nothing more than our formulation of our
> observations. 

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:06:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Expert

I am petitioning the Senate to grant me Expert status in the
topic of 'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.

Malenkai
Expert in other stuff

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

> I am petitioning the Senate to grant me Expert status in the
> topic of 'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.
> 
> Malenkai
> Expert in other stuff

The Senate, or rather, this particular Senator, refers Malenkai to
criteria 4, 5, and 6 (though notes simultaneously that 1 and 2 are
pretty much automatically covereed).

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:32:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

Brian Raiter wrote:

> The Senate, or rather, this particular Senator, refers Malenkai to
> criteria 4, 5, and 6 (though notes simultaneously that 1 and 2 are
> pretty much automatically covereed).

Areas 4,5, and 6 are pretty subjective.  

Area 4: Certainly the area is well-defined; it is not just any form of
Bandwidth-Wasting, and its not just any form of Gizz.

Area 5: Certainly it is not too broad.  We all agree that the rules are
mush broader than 'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.  Clearly the amount of
bandwidth wasted is broader.

Area 6: I'm sure not *everyone* understood the recent exchanges of 
'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.  Since I could not understand Bascule's Blather 
(BB); we have proof by example ;)

Malenkai
hopeful Expert
Join us on IRC and debate the songs of Jim Steinman

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

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Calvin N Hobbes has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 371
>   Subject: Paranormal Paradox
> Initiator: breadbox
>     Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Apr 09, 1997, 21:25h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> If Krycek releases a W-File Case report, AND if there exists more than
> one Scientist to whom the clause requiring the writing of a refuting
> report applies, THEN it is equally legal and illegal for each
> Scientist Scientist to write no such report.
> 
> breadbox's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 261 states:
> 
>  At least one Scientist must write a refuting report that should
>  contain the phrases 'violates the laws of physics' and 'a claw is a
>  claw and nobody has seen a talking claw'.
> 
> The use of the word "must" indicates that for this to not happen is a
> breaking of the rules.

I agree, but...

> 
> (It is therefore also a Crime by Rule 713: a Crime, but with no
> perpetrator. It would be impossible to convict any of the Scientists,
> as a CFCJ requires that a single player be named as having broken the
> rules. Note that there is no conflict here, since nowhere do the rules
> require someone to be eligible for conviction every time a Crime is
> committed. I mention this only to emphasize that this is not the seat
> of the paradox.)
> 
> Now, suppose that you are one of the Scientists. None of the other
> Scientists have written a report refuting Krycek's report. Perhaps the
> other Scientists have even publically stated that they will not write
> the report. Therefore, if you do not write such a report, the rules
> get broken. But did you break the rules? The rules do not require you
> personally to write a report. In fact, they do not require any
> Scientist, in particular, to write a report.

I think this is wrong.  The rules do not require you to publicly post
your refuting report, for one thing.  Nor do they require the report be
submitted within a set time period.  *All* of the scientists could
publicly declare that they were not going to write a report, and no crime
would have been committed, because there will always be the possibility
that a report will be written at some time in the future.

> 
> But they *do* require that at least one Scientist write a report. So
> perhaps you did break the rules. Or perhaps one could argue that all
> of the Scientists did, as a group: that the "Scientific Community" has
> broken the rules. But regardless of such semantic quibbling, all of
> the Scientists, at all times, were obeying the rules! Never was it
> impermissible for you, or any other Scientist, to choose to not write
> that report. It seems that nobody has violated the rule. But the rule
> has still been disobeyed, which is impermissible.

You are correct in that all of the scientists can not post a message, and
still be obeying the rules.  The place where I think you are wrong is
where you claim the rule has been disobeyed, in fact, I think it's more
the opposite, this rule cannot be disobeyed.  The rule will wait forever
for it's conditions to be fulfilled, so it's perfectly legal for any or
all the scientists to wait for so long that they may well look like
they're never going to post a refuting report.  The rule is optimistic,
you see.  It figures that someday, somehow, that report will be posted,
and it's willing to wait as long as it takes.

> 
> If it could be assumed that all but one of the Scientists will not
> write a report, then it is clear that the remaining Scientist must
> write the report. To do otherwise would be illegal. But that
> assumption is not a given, nor does it become one at any time. For any
> Scientist to not write a report is always a legal act.
> 
> And yet, it is still illegal for all of the Scientists to so act.
> Someone must write that damned report. But how can this be, when it is
> never illegal for any player to choose not to?
> 
> The situation is such that every player can obey the rules, and yet
> the rules are nonetheless broken. In short, the act of not writing a
> report - a report that the rules demand be written - is, for each and
> every Scientist, an action that is equally legal and illegal.

Without any limitations on where and when the report is made, it is always
legal, and never illegal, for a scientist not to make a refuting report.
You seem to be treating not making a report as an action that is actually
taken, as opposed to a simple lack of any action at all.  There is no
point at which it can ever be said that a report will not be written, some
how, some way.  It can only be said that no such report has been written
*yet*, and there's nothing illegal here about taking your own sweet time.

> 
> As a formality, I note that this is a Paradox Win CFJ, and if judged
> True the submitter will win the current Cycle.
> 

                            - Vynd, just calling it as he sees it.

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:42:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

Vynd wrote:

> I think this is wrong.  The rules do not require you to publicly post
> your refuting report, for one thing.  Nor do they require the report be
> submitted within a set time period.

- -From R 401:

>      (xi) Efficiency 

>            Officers have 3 days to complete the tasks and duties they
> are responsible for, not counting any time the officer is on vacation
> or in Gaol, unless other rules unambiguously specify a different
> finite amount of time for these things. 

>            Officers, in good faith, shall do all tasks and duties
> as quickly as feasible to keep the game moving along.

Scientists are officers.

Malenkai
Expert in Offices

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

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:42:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert

On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > The Senate, or rather, this particular Senator, refers Malenkai to
> > criteria 4, 5, and 6 (though notes simultaneously that 1 and 2 are
> > pretty much automatically covereed).
> 
> Areas 4,5, and 6 are pretty subjective.  
> 
> Area 4: Certainly the area is well-defined; it is not just any form of
> Bandwidth-Wasting, and its not just any form of Gizz.
> 
> Area 5: Certainly it is not too broad.  We all agree that the rules are
> mush broader than 'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.  Clearly the amount of
> bandwidth wasted is broader.
> 
> Area 6: I'm sure not *everyone* understood the recent exchanges of 
> 'Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz'.  Since I could not understand Bascule's Blather 
> (BB); we have proof by example ;)

Hrmph.  You've already admitted to your lack of knowledge in the area
then?  Doesn't seem like a strong case for expertise (sp?) to me...

> 
> Malenkai
> hopeful Expert
> Join us on IRC and debate the songs of Jim Steinman
> 

                       - Vynd,  Unofficial Expert on Unofficial Expertise

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 371 (Calvin N Hobbes)

> I think this is wrong.  The rules do not require you to publicly post
> your refuting report, for one thing.

Reread my reasoning. I never made reference to publicly posting a
report. Only the writing of the report.

> Nor do they require the report be submitted within a set time
> period.  *All* of the scientists could publicly declare that they
> were not going to write a report, and no crime would have been
> committed, because there will always be the possibility that a
> report will be written at some time in the future.

This could be a viable objection, except that there is a longstanding
game custom that when the rules require a report and do not say when,
then the Officer is given three days to produce it, with the
understanding that e should produce it as timely as possible.

The rules also do not give a set time period by when the Clerk of the
Courts must distribute a submitted CFJ. But if the CotC sat on a CFJ
submission for more than three days without distributing it, I would
have an extremely good case for a CFCJ.

breadbox

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #42
******************************