Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #49
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, April 15 1997        Volume 02 : Number 049

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:00:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: G&C RFC

I have an RFC to move all the G&C stuff into a rule suite.  Its only
about 60K, and doesn't use that elegant promotion mechanism proposed
by Mohammed because I had to change each one in some ways.  I figured
it would not be a good idea to jam that through wilma, especially
when few people probably want to read it, so it is on the web.  The
main proposal is in:

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

and each rule change for the specific games we have is in a seperate
file pointed to by that one (I wonder if that will actually be a
legal way to do things).

If you do not have web access, and want to see all this sludge, let me
know.  In any case, if you are interested in games and contests, 
please review and propose changes; this will probably cause some bugs,
but we might as well do it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 373 (Vynd)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Vynd has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgement 373
>   Subject: Creator
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: Vynd (selected Apr 14, 1997, 18:50h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Malenkai is not the creator of Beldin's Pants.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> Players can create trinkets and gadgets, but the rules generally create
> most other entities.  Malenkai created proposal 1594 which created 
> rule 1594.2 (at the time) which created Beldin's Pants.  Its a fine but
> important distinction.  I think sometimes colloqially we say 'player X
> created entity Y' when really 'player X created proposal Z which created
> rule W which creates entity Y' for convienence, but such convienent 
> figures of speech have no bearing on the rules or game custom.  'To 
> create' is one of those verbs that has been given special operational
> status by the rules, and general English renderings have no sway.  
> 
> - From rule 500:
> 
> > An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
> > specified by the Rules
> 
> The rules never specified a way for Malenkai to create the entity we 
> know of as Beldin's Pants, they merely specified ways for Malenkai
> to create a proposal, and for other entities to creare rule 1592.2.
> 

I accept this.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:31:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai)

Malenkai has been chosen.  Isn't that peachy :)

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgement 374
  Subject: ETP
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Apr 15, 1997, 7:30h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Pumpkin Patch Nomic is not a legal Trade Partner.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

 The Pumpkin is currently undergoing a two week period called a
Constitutional Convention, during which all rules, excepting the
Constitutional Convention rule itself, are inactive. I argue that at this
time Pumpkin Patch nomic does not have rules that define and ETP
procedure, and specifically they do not have rules similar to Ackanomic's

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:23:18 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

/dev/joe wrote:

> I disagree with this reasoning; I don't see how the simultaneity makes
> the
> game unplayable.  It seems to me that if the transfer of the little
> lamb
> occurs simultaneously with the grabbing of donkeys, the result when
> exactly
> one player attempts to grab the donkey of the player possessing the
> little
> lamb is the same as if that player stood around admiring his donkey,
> and
> acquired the little lamb by external means at the same time -- that
> is,
> the grabbing player gets the lamb and the player with the lamb keeps
> his
> donkey; the grabbing player keeps his donkey unless exactly one player
> grabbed it, in which case he gets to keep the little lamb but is
> eliminated
> from the game.
> 
> In the case in question, breadbox grabbed Malenkai's little lamb and
> ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey, eliminating breadbox from the game.
> breadbox keeps the little lamb, while ThinMan and Malenkai continue
> playing (ThinMan with one successful grab recorded).
> 
FWIW, I share /dev/joe's opinion on the matter.  Indeed, although I
have kept silent about it until now, I don't see that any other
interpretation is very reasonable -- it is the very simultaneity
of the whole thing that does it.  Only one player owns the Lamb at
any given time.  Malenkai owned it when breadbox grabbed it.  I
attempted to grab breadbox's donkey at exactly the same time.  At
the time that I made my attempt, then, it was Malenkai, not breadbox,
that owned the donkey.

ThinMan
passed up his chance to rule on this one

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:52:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

> In the case in question, breadbox grabbed Malenkai's little lamb and
> ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey, eliminating breadbox from the game.
> breadbox keeps the little lamb, while ThinMan and Malenkai continue
> playing (ThinMan with one successful grab recorded).
	I agree with this 100%.  I would appeal it but it would be futile.

- -- 
Mohammed
Watch out for a hippie pretty babe!

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:58:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  slay me if

Slay me if this was revealed earlier, but nonetheless, please send me
Antimatter's and two-star's e-mail addresses.  Without this information I
can't put them in the bot, and I already have mail piling up from one of
them (impossible to tell which, but I'd guess it's Anti).  :o)

- -- 
Mohammed
Watch out for a hippie pretty babe!

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:27:58 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: comment on CFJ 372 

>   I want to allow for G&C Games which are too long for practical e-mail
>   play to be quickened by the use of IRC for some of the messages.
>   In particular, Spades is a fine game, but a typical game might take
>   8 hands, with 56 public messages (4 bids, 52 card plays) required for
>   each hand!  [I've played in a real life spades game, with rules
>   essentially the same as ones in our G&C Spades, which took 17 hands,
>   but that's extreme.]  The bids and card plays can be replaced by
>   messages to all the other players and the referee, with public
>   messages being required to announce only the beginning of the game
>   and the results when it is over.  If this CFJ is judged true I will
>   propose the appropriate amendment to Spades.

The statement that Spades can't be played by email. Because its too 
long for pratical e-mail play is false, because multiplayer games are 
played by email, which take longer then 100 moves a player. 

These games take longer then a month to finish.

But the same as there is a seperate maillists there can also be 
created a seperate channel for G&C spades. 

<CarsesraC>  

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:29:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai) 

>
> The Pumpkin is currently undergoing a two week period called a
>Constitutional Convention, during which all rules, excepting the
>Constitutional Convention rule itself, are inactive. I argue that at this
>time Pumpkin Patch nomic does not have rules that define and ETP
>procedure, and specifically they do not have rules similar to Ackanomic's

This is true.  Almost immediatly after I declared PPN a trade partner, they
entered a constitutional convention phase.  There is legislation in
progress which may bring back, or may not brink back for that matter, ETP
early, before the rest of the ruleset is finalized.

I hereby declare (assuming I have the power) that until PPN returns to a
normal state, a state with ETP rules, that they are not a trade partner of
Ackanomic.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:32:12 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??) 

>FWIW, I share /dev/joe's opinion on the matter.  Indeed, although I
>have kept silent about it until now, I don't see that any other
>interpretation is very reasonable -- it is the very simultaneity
>of the whole thing that does it.  Only one player owns the Lamb at
>any given time.  Malenkai owned it when breadbox grabbed it.  I
>attempted to grab breadbox's donkey at exactly the same time.  At
>the time that I made my attempt, then, it was Malenkai, not breadbox,
>that owned the donkey.
>
>ThinMan
>passed up his chance to rule on this one

True, but wouldn't it follow that by the moment you had grabbed breadbox's
donkey, he has grabbed malenkai's lamb?  Sure, at the moment of your
attempt, he didn't have the lamb, *but* at the moment of your grab...

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:22:54 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

snowgod wrote:

> True, but wouldn't it follow that by the moment you had grabbed
> breadbox's
> donkey, he has grabbed malenkai's lamb?  Sure, at the moment of your
> attempt, he didn't have the lamb, *but* at the moment of your grab...
> 
*After* the simultaneous grabs, yes, the situation is as you describe.
What has that got to do with the results of the (then past) grabs?

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:20:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

ThinMan's assertion raises a second issue: if the grabs are simultaneous, 
are they also instantaneous?  If not, then his reasoning is sound-ish: 
during the time it takes for breadbox to gain possession of the little 
lamb, he has been removed from the GAL.

If however, the actions occur instantaneously AND simultaneously, then 
ThinMan's reasoning is not sound.  The results in this case are somewhat 
difficult to reason out, although they might be solved by introducing a 
lamb duality (Not two lambs, just joint ownership of it.)

> > True, but wouldn't it follow that by the moment you had grabbed
> > breadbox's
> > donkey, he has grabbed malenkai's lamb?  Sure, at the moment of your
> > attempt, he didn't have the lamb, *but* at the moment of your grab...
> > 
> *After* the simultaneous grabs, yes, the situation is as you describe.
> What has that got to do with the results of the (then past) grabs?
> 
> ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> ThinMan's assertion raises a second issue: if the grabs are simultaneous, 
> are they also instantaneous?  If not, then his reasoning is sound-ish: 
> during the time it takes for breadbox to gain possession of the little 
> lamb, he has been removed from the GAL.
> 
> If however, the actions occur instantaneously AND simultaneously, then 
> ThinMan's reasoning is not sound.  The results in this case are somewhat 
> difficult to reason out, although they might be solved by introducing a 
> lamb duality (Not two lambs, just joint ownership of it.)
> 

Just think, we haven't even begun to address the possibility of breadobx
grabbing the lamb, ThinMan grabbing it from breadbox, me grabbing it from
ThinMan, Malenkai grabbing it from me, etc, all in an attempt to grab the
person's Donkey.  I like the reasoning that the grabs are simultaneous,
with the implication that if you grab the lamb while someone is grabbing
your Donkey, you lose your Donkey and are out of the game.

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:01:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Official: Misc

The senate has approved snowgod's application for expert status
in "Ackanomic Headwear".

Upon the posting of the results of P1909, CarsesraC became an
active player, and the Whamiols give their bonuses 29 and 1/2 days
after the last time they gave out bonuses. [Thank you, CarsesraC!]
Guy Fawkes also became active at this time.

With the passage of P1910, fnord has become the Harfmeister.

fnord also received a processing chip for P1909 and 3 for P1910.

#award snowgod : Expert in Ackanomic Headwear
#award fnord : +4 processing chip
#transfer IdiotBoy, fnord : Harfmeister

/dev/joe
Senator
Scorekeeper
Not Registrar
Who's the processing chip harfer, anyway?

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:04:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

> The senate has approved snowgod's application for expert status
> in "Ackanomic Headwear".

I forgot to mention the the voting was 3-0 in favor of approving this.

By the way, did I miss the nomination call for the empty senate seat?

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:09:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> #transfer IdiotBoy, fnord : Harfmeister
> 

FWIW, I was not Harfmeister, though I sure would like to be!  I think it
was Vynd.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:10:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

> 
> By the way, did I miss the nomination call for the empty senate seat?
> 
> /dev/joe
>
 
Apparently. ;)

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:16:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

IdiotBoy wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > #transfer IdiotBoy, fnord : Harfmeister
> > 
> 
> FWIW, I was not Harfmeister, though I sure would like to be!  I think it
> was Vynd.

You were Harfmeister for a few days, since P1906 (Foolishness) passed.
I may not have announced it.

This is probably a record -- a streak of 6 passed proposals is current,
and it contains 2 harfy proposals.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> You were Harfmeister for a few days, since P1906 (Foolishness) passed.
> I may not have announced it.
> 
> This is probably a record -- a streak of 6 passed proposals is current,
> and it contains 2 harfy proposals.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

Dang!  I didn't even know my proposal was harfy.  I guess I'll take Vynd
out of my kill file. ;)

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:37:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:

>> Call For Judgement 364

>
>I disagree with this reasoning; I don't see how the simultaneity makes the
>game unplayable.  It seems to me that if the transfer of the little lamb
>occurs simultaneously with the grabbing of donkeys, the result when exactly
>one player attempts to grab the donkey of the player possessing the little
>lamb is the same as if that player stood around admiring his donkey, and
>acquired the little lamb by external means at the same time -- that is,
>the grabbing player gets the lamb and the player with the lamb keeps his
>donkey; the grabbing player keeps his donkey unless exactly one player
>grabbed it, in which case he gets to keep the little lamb but is eliminated
>from the game.

Why?  I mean, why does it seem that way to you?  If the transfer were
truly simultaneous, it seems to me they'd all have the Little Lamb at the
same time.  Or else it would zip to the last person in the chain.  Maybe
unplayable was too strong.  The Rule still doesn't give a clue as to which
to chose here, either, though.

>
>In the case in question, breadbox grabbed Malenkai's little lamb and
>ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey, eliminating breadbox from the game.
>breadbox keeps the little lamb, while ThinMan and Malenkai continue
>playing (ThinMan with one successful grab recorded).
>

The above isn't a description of a result of simultaneous transfer, but of
the first LL transfer occurring before donkey grabs, and the second after
(i.e., too late to actually occur).

I guess you're not a candidate for Consecutor :)

- -mr cwm 

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Vynd wrote:

>
>Just think, we haven't even begun to address the possibility of breadobx
>grabbing the lamb, ThinMan grabbing it from breadbox, me grabbing it from
>ThinMan, Malenkai grabbing it from me, etc, all in an attempt to grab the
>person's Donkey.  I like the reasoning that the grabs are simultaneous,
>with the implication that if you grab the lamb while someone is grabbing
>your Donkey, you lose your Donkey and are out of the game.
>

I like that result, too, (and it's what I assumed until this CFJ promted a
close reading of the rules) but I wouldn't call it reasoning, because I
don't think the rule supports it.  The rule doesn't support anything,
which is the problem. 

- -mr cwm
 who was beginning to think things were getting a bit dull

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:51:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

mr cwm wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:
> >I disagree with this reasoning; I don't see how the simultaneity makes the
> >game unplayable.  It seems to me that if the transfer of the little lamb
> >occurs simultaneously with the grabbing of donkeys, the result when exactly
> >one player attempts to grab the donkey of the player possessing the little
> >lamb is the same as if that player stood around admiring his donkey, and
> >acquired the little lamb by external means at the same time -- that is,
> >the grabbing player gets the lamb and the player with the lamb keeps his
> >donkey; the grabbing player keeps his donkey unless exactly one player
> >grabbed it, in which case he gets to keep the little lamb but is eliminated
> >from the game.
> 
> Why?  I mean, why does it seem that way to you?  If the transfer were
> truly simultaneous, it seems to me they'd all have the Little Lamb at the
> same time.  Or else it would zip to the last person in the chain.  Maybe
> unplayable was too strong.  The Rule still doesn't give a clue as to which
> to chose here, either, though.

Here's how I see it:

before transfer:
ThinMan(d)           breadbox(d)           Malenkai(d,l)

Now ThinMan attempts to grab breadbox's donkey, and breadbox attempts
to grab Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai stood around or grabbed some
other donkey.

You check, simultaneously for each player, how many players tried to grab
his donkey, whether he covered it, and whether he had the lamb, as well
as whether there was exactly one player who didn't cover his donkey.
ThinMan was the only player who grabbed breadbox's donkey, and breadbox
**DOESN'T HAVE THE LAMB YET**, and breadbox was the only player who
grabbed Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai has the lamb now.

during transfer:
ThinMan(d)   <-(d)-    breadbox     <-(l)-   Malenkai(d)

after transfer:
ThinMan(d, bb's d)     breadbox(l)           Malenkai(d)

breadbox is then eliminated from the game before it proceeds
to the next round because his donkey has been successfully grabbed.

In order to do it the way mr cwm wants to do it, you'd have to process
breadbox's attempted grab before processing ThinMan's attempted grab,
i.e., handle lamb grabs before donkey grabs.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:08:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> >> Call For Judgement 364
> 
> >
> >I disagree with this reasoning; I don't see how the simultaneity makes the
> >game unplayable.  It seems to me that if the transfer of the little lamb
> >occurs simultaneously with the grabbing of donkeys, the result when exactly
> >one player attempts to grab the donkey of the player possessing the little
> >lamb is the same as if that player stood around admiring his donkey, and
> >acquired the little lamb by external means at the same time -- that is,
> >the grabbing player gets the lamb and the player with the lamb keeps his
> >donkey; the grabbing player keeps his donkey unless exactly one player
> >grabbed it, in which case he gets to keep the little lamb but is eliminated
> >from the game.
> 
> Why?  I mean, why does it seem that way to you?  If the transfer were
> truly simultaneous, it seems to me they'd all have the Little Lamb at the
> same time.  Or else it would zip to the last person in the chain.  Maybe
> unplayable was too strong.  The Rule still doesn't give a clue as to which
> to chose here, either, though.

The simultaneous is unplayable in one sense; it creates a paradox of sorts
if there is a circle of grabs (two players grabbing each other is the
simplest case) and any member of the circle has the Little Lamb.

The "lamb first" variant suffers from the same potential paradox.

This leaves the "lamb last" interpretation -- which would be supported by
game custom if a potentially paradoxical interpretation (as opposed to an
actually paradoxical one) defers to a non-paradoxical one.

Guy Fawkes
once again, switching sides on the issue

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:

>mr cwm wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:
>> >I disagree with this reasoning; I don't see how the simultaneity makes the
>> >game unplayable.  It seems to me that if the transfer of the little lamb
>> >occurs simultaneously with the grabbing of donkeys, the result when exactly
>> >one player attempts to grab the donkey of the player possessing the little
>> >lamb is the same as if that player stood around admiring his donkey, and
>> >acquired the little lamb by external means at the same time -- that is,
>> >the grabbing player gets the lamb and the player with the lamb keeps his
>> >donkey; the grabbing player keeps his donkey unless exactly one player
>> >grabbed it, in which case he gets to keep the little lamb but is eliminated
>> >from the game.
>> 
>> Why?  I mean, why does it seem that way to you?  If the transfer were
>> truly simultaneous, it seems to me they'd all have the Little Lamb at the
>> same time.  Or else it would zip to the last person in the chain.  Maybe
>> unplayable was too strong.  The Rule still doesn't give a clue as to which
>> to chose here, either, though.
>
>Here's how I see it:
>
>before transfer:
>ThinMan(d)           breadbox(d)           Malenkai(d,l)
>
>Now ThinMan attempts to grab breadbox's donkey, and breadbox attempts
>to grab Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai stood around or grabbed some
>other donkey.
>
>You check, simultaneously for each player, how many players tried to grab
>his donkey, whether he covered it, and whether he had the lamb, as well
>as whether there was exactly one player who didn't cover his donkey.
>ThinMan was the only player who grabbed breadbox's donkey, and breadbox
>**DOESN'T HAVE THE LAMB YET**, and breadbox was the only player who
>grabbed Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai has the lamb now.
>

Why does breadbox not yet have the LL?  He attempted to grab Malenkai's
Donkey, but got confused and grabbed the LL instead.  The LL *is
transferred* to him.

>during transfer:
>ThinMan(d)   <-(d)-    breadbox     <-(l)-   Malenkai(d)
>
>after transfer:
>ThinMan(d, bb's d)     breadbox(l)           Malenkai(d)
>

You're saying "during transfer" as though it's obvious there's some time
delay between grabbing something and getting it.  Wouldn't that mean, in
your illustration, that there is a time in which the donkey that was
breadbox's and the LL that was Malenkai's are possessed by no one?  Even
if that's possible, there's nothing in the rule to say it happens that
way.

>breadbox is then eliminated from the game before it proceeds
>to the next round because his donkey has been successfully grabbed.
>
>In order to do it the way mr cwm wants to do it, you'd have to process
>breadbox's attempted grab before processing ThinMan's attempted grab,
>i.e., handle lamb grabs before donkey grabs.
>

It's not that I want to do it that way, it's that I don't believe the rule
provides a basis on which to say it happens one way or the other.  I could
say, "in order to do it the way /dev/joe wants to do it, you'd have to
process ThinMan's attempted grab before processing breadbox's attempted
grab, i.e., handle donkey grabs before lamb grabs."  Which isn't a bad
thing, it's just that the rule doesn't say which way to do it.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

>
>The simultaneous is unplayable in one sense; it creates a paradox of sorts
>if there is a circle of grabs (two players grabbing each other is the
>simplest case) and any member of the circle has the Little Lamb.
>
>The "lamb first" variant suffers from the same potential paradox.
>
>This leaves the "lamb last" interpretation -- which would be supported by
>game custom if a potentially paradoxical interpretation (as opposed to an
>actually paradoxical one) defers to a non-paradoxical one.
>

That's good.  I'll have to think about it.

- -mr cwm
 wavering?

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #49
******************************