Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #53
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Thursday, April 17 1997       Volume 02 : Number 053

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:55:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G&C RFC

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> 
> [about the G&C reorg]
> 
> > There's another addition I'd like to see:
> > "
> > A game acording  to the rules that were in effect when the instance of the
> > game started unless specified otherwise.
> > "
> 
> I believe there is a verb missing somewhere in this amendment; I'm not
> sure what you mean or where you want it to go.  Unfortuantely, I
Sorry, happens sometimes.

> submitted the proposal, if this is not a major flaw, perhaps it can be
> done as an amendment.  Do you mean "a game is *played* [according...]?

That is what I meant. I don't think it's major, and I could do this
seperately, 
The point is, if a game is in progress and the rules for the games are
changed, the way I read G&C now, it would have to be played by the new
rules, change rules mid-game. For some games, like Diplomacy(or nomic) 
it's fine, For others, it could cause unnecessary confusion. I think it's
a useful default.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:13:30 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate (questions for the nominees) 

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> 
> Before I cast my vote, I'd like to hear from each of the nominees. Could you
> each say a little about yourselves, and about how you will fulfill your
> responsibilities as Senator.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

Why certainly. Nothing would please me more.

I intend to fulfill my responsibilities with an air of self importance, a
touch playing the role, and without contempt.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:01:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: GAD stuff (CFJ364)

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Vynd wrote:

>
>
>On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:
>
>> There has been some confusing discussion using the terms "simultaneous" 
>> and "Instantaneous"  in regards to GAD,  and neither is quite accurate. 
>> As the author of GAD,  I hope that I can say this without much
>> contradiction:
>> 
>> Players actions in GAD do not occur instantaneously at all.  There are
>> references in the Rule to "start of the Round".  and certain actions do
>> behave in specific steps.  If a Player's Donkey was successfully Grabbed
>> in the previous round,  that Player is removed from the GAL before any
>> other actions are computed,  and the results of the previous round's
>> actions are posted by the Wrangler.  The intention of the ammendment
>> referring to the Little Lamb was obviously with the intention of giving a
>> Player a slight advantage in that that Player could,  at least once, 
>> attempty to grab anothewr's Donkey without fear of being removed from the
>> GAL.  The wording of the Rule allows for this,  and is interpretable to
>> be resolved without paradox nor an endless swapping of the LL.  Note that
>> the Rule states that the results of the round occur at the end of the
>> round,  not at the time the actions were performed.  

Actually, I beleive the rule states that removals from the list occur at
the end of the round, but simply states that the LL *is transferred*
without stating when.

This means that 
>> ThinMan's attempt to Grab breadbox's Donkey would have been judged
>> successful by the Wrangler,  because at the start of the round,  breadbox
>> was not in possession of the LL and did not cover eir Donkey.  Breadbox, 
>> therefore would have been removed from the GAL at the start of the next
>> round.  Since malenkai did not cover eir Donkey either,  and WAS in
>> possession of the LL at the start of the round,  breadbox successfully
>> Grab the LL and now has possession of it.  Thius also means that the
>> Little Lamb is no longer a consideration for the remainder of the game of
>> GAD unless breadbox transfers the LL to a Player still active in GAD.
>
>This is essentialy what I've been, confusedly, trying to say with my
>simultaneous argument.  ThinMan is grabbing breadbox's donkey at the same
>time that breadbox is grabbing Malenkai's lamb.  Since these grabs are
>resolved simultaneously, breadbox actually gets the Lamb at the same time
>that ThinMan gets beadbox's donkey.  The other interpretation seems to
>based on the idea that as soon as breadbox attempts to grab Malenkai's
>donkey, he gets the lamb, this taking place before ThinMan grabs
>breadbox's donkey (or, presumably, before anyone grabs anything other than
>a lamb), and I don't see any support for this in the rules.
>

I don't see support for either in the rules, I'm *not* arguing that the
way way everyone seems to disagree with is *the* way, I'm saying we can't
tell which is *the* way.  (Except for the avoidance of paradox if equally
plausible principle, which has been pointed out, perhaps.)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:05:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 364 Jury Trial Consecutor

To:   Ackanomians
From: Justice mr cwm

With no volunteers at hand, and running out of time, I select Red Barn as
Consecutor.  Enjoy :)

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Temporary Address Change

While the machine I use is OK, the LAN I use to access it has gone into
molasses mode.  Unstable molasses mode, at that.  Please change my address
to:

[email-masked]

for a while (hey, AOL might actually be an improvement!).  Thanks.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:53:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 374 Verdict

CFJ 374 has been judged INVALID.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 374
  Subject: ETP
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Apr 15, 1997, 7:30h EDT)
Judgement: INVALID

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

Malenkai's Reasoning:

First let me say that with the possible exception of CFJ 284, this
is the most difficult CFJ I have had to deal with.  I still do not
know how I am going to judge it as I write this, and all 4 verdicts
are in serious contention.  I apologize for the length and all the
factual work, but if I get this wrong, I at least want the next
Court or Judge to have the recorded benefit of my research.  I will
also apologize for rather repetitious comments at times; I am trying to
reason by writing thoughts as they come to my head, and rather than a
final edit, would rather perserve my thought process on this.

Some facts and pseudo facts (search for 'end of facts' to skip):  

1) I am construing 'Pumpkin Patch Nomic' (PPN) to be an extra-nomic
entity as recognized by rule 501, specifically the Nomic known in
Internomic by that name.

2) snowgod designated (or attempted to designate) PPN to be a
"Trade Partner" per rule 530, on Apr 14:

> In my first act as Customs Officer, I am declaring Pumpkin Patch Nomic to
> be a Trade Partner of Ackanomic, having found that they havbe similar ETP
> rules.

I say 'attempted' because it may be found that this act was against the
rules.

3) Firsthand and antecdotal experience indicates that PPN may not have
a rule even remotely similar to rule 530 or 531.  However, when I 
joined that nomic to do research for this CFJ, I received the following
information, quoted below, from the nomic.  I note that it is unclear
from this whether their game state has no rules, or whether they have
rules which are suspended, or the game is in some other state.  Moreover,
I cannot discern whether their game custom (if they even have game custom),
allows for the Platonic existance of any rule whose existance is not
explicitly provided for or regulated against.  It is possible (ie, *that*
Platonic rule may exist ;)).  Therefore, it is with much trepidation
that I would declare that they have no substantially similar rule to
530 or 531; I cannot say that with finality.

Received from PPN by me as a player there:

> dr west will doubtless put you on the mailinglist since you have asked
> our rules are *suspended* [emphasis mine]

> our ruleset became unruly
> we are in the process of starting over with an initial set and
> reorganising
> spelling and punctuation are optional
> every so often there are those (self included) who forget that this is a
> game and engage in questionable comments
> these posts in now way reflect the opinions of the patch as a whole and

> As you may know, the Pumpkin Patch is in disarray these days, to say the
> least. On *Sunday* [my emphasis], a proposal passed which said, in
> effect, that we had entered into a "Constitutional Convention", a state
> of affairs where our previous ruleset is defunct and all our efforts
> shall be directed toward forming a new, more perfect bureaucracy. The
> Pumpkin Patch will be suspended within this chrysalis until April 27th,
> I believe, at which time we will resume buniness as usual.

"Sunday", in this case, was Apr 13th, contrary to what snowgod said on
Apr 15th, referring to the events of Apr 14th (snowgod declaring PPN
a Trade Partner).  The sequence of events may have a bearing on the
verdict.  (snowgod wrote, Apr 15th):

> [reference to CFJ 374's reasoning] is true.  Almost immediatly after
> I declared PPN a trade partner [on Apr 14th], they entered a
> constitutional convention phase.

We have conflicting information here.  snowgod claims the CC phase was
entered *after* he declared the nomic a Trade Partner, whilst communication
from a member of the PPN which I received firsthand as a player in
that nomic indicates that the CC occurred on the 13th, the day *before*
snowgod declared the PPN a Trade Partner.  Moreover, a post to Internomic
by PPN's GRAPE (which I cannot reproduce), also indicates that the
PPN would enter this state on the 13th.  However, a legal point that
may eventually have to be considered is whether facts or custom external
to our Nomic have any sway at all; it may be that snowgod's Ackanomic
statement quoted above, even as apparently shown to be false in an
extra-nomic sense, is game custom which holds sway in Acka, in the
absence of any other *Acka* game custom.

Another wrinkle on this is that it is possible that the CC was not 
legally called in PPN.  Perhaps the officers responsible for determining
if their game went into this state made an error or broke the rules,
and new facts or judgements in the PPN will come to light to retroactively
void the CC, much in the same vein as CFJ 186 retroactively voided *our*
Constitutional Convention, a good week after it was called and its
verdict delivered!

4) What follows are PPN's ETP rules (which may or may not have been
suspended or even exist at the times in question):

- -------- begin PPN ETP rules (search for 'end PPN ETP' to skip ---------

M-469 Entity Transfer Protocol, Part I

1) A new office shall be established with the title "Customs Officer." 

2) a) Nomics who have assigned to one of their players duties and
responsibilities similar to those assigned in Pumpkin Patch Nomic to the
Customs Officer and whose rulesets include a rule or rules substantially
similar to Pumpkin Patch Nomic's Entity Transfer Protocol will be
designated Trade Partners of Pumpkin Patch Nomic. The Customs Officer of
Pumpkin Patch Nomic shall have final authority to designate Trade Partners
of Pumpkin Patch Nomic. Hereafter the unmodified term "Customs Officer"
shall be assumed to include both the Customs Officer of Pumpkin Patch
Nomic and any player in a Trade Partner nomic having duties similar to
those of the Customs Officer of Pumpkin Patch Nomic.

b) In order to be considered substantially similar to Pumpkin Patch
Nomic's Entity Transfer Protocol, a rule or rules must specify definitions
for all of the properties listed in section 5 below, must specify these
definitions in such a way that they will not conflict with the definitions
specified by the rules of Pumpkin Patch Nomic, and must institute the
inspection procedure describe in section 4 below. 

3) Only game entities assigned values for the properties listed in section
5 below by the rulesets of their Nomics of Origin may be transferred into
Pumpkin Patch Nomic or into Trade Partner nomics. Game entities may not be
transferred into nomics not recognized as Trade Partners to Pumpkin Patch
Nomic, and entities originating from nomics not recognized as Trade
Partners to Pumpkin Patch Nomic may not be transferred into Pumpkin Patch
Nomic.

4) a) Whenever an entity is transferred into or out of a nomic, an Entity
Profile must be communicated to the Customs Officer of both any nomic out
of which the entity is being transferred and any nomic into which the
entity is being transferred. 

b)The transfer shall not take place until all Customs Officers who
received the Entity Profile have approved the transfer and have notified
their nomics of the transfer by communicating to their nomics the Entity
Profiles of the transferred entities, and until 24 hours have passed from
the time of such notification without players objecting to the transfer. 

c) The Customs Officer must inspect all transfers into and out of his or
her nomic and prevent any transfer that will result in an ambiguity in the
rules of any nomic.

5) An entity's Entity Profile must specify its values for the following
properties, which must be assigned to the entity by the rules of its nomic
of origin:

Properties:
Entity Behavior Rule
Nomic of Origin

M-470 Entity Transfer Protocol, Part II: Properties

In order to be transferred out of or into pumpkin-patch nomic, an entity
must have rule-defined values for the following properties in accordance
with the specifications and restrictions set out in the following
definitions:

Entity Behavior Rule, or EBR - An entity's EBR becomes a temporary part of
a nomic's ruleset when that nomic contains the entity, and is removed from
a nomic's ruleset as soon as the entity is no longer present within the
nomic. When an EBR becomes part of a nomic's ruleset, it is added as a
temporary subsection of a rule specified in that nomic's ruleset as the
EBR Host Rule. If a nomic's ruleset does not specify an EBR Host Rule,
then that nomic's definition of the EBR property (if there is such a
definition) shall be considered to be in conflict with Pumpkin Patch
Nomic's definition of the EBR property. An entity's EBR may specify
properties and states for that entity that are not defined in entity
transfer protocol rules such as this one. The EBR Host Rule for Pumpkin
Patch Nomic shall be the Entity Transfer Protocol, Part II.

Nomic of Origin - The nomic whose rules created the entity and define its
properties. All entities defined by rules in the ruleset of Pumpkin Patch
Nomic (excluding EBR's imported from other nomics) shall have Pumpkin
Patch Nomic as their nomic of origin.

- -------- end PPN ETP rules ---------

There are 3 notable differences between these rules and 530 and 531.
Our rule 530 has the extra two pieces of language:

> (in the opinion of the Customs Officers involved)

> though it is considered bad form for the Customs Officer to use this
> power to attempt a scam.

Thirdly, our rule 530 allows a 72 hour veto period, where the PPN rule
allows a similar period of 24 hours.

Of these 3 differences, I find the second and third insignificant; yet
find the first a potential threat to the "substantially similar"
provision.  The ETP rules provide a procedure for determining if a 
Trade Partner is qualified; the fact that one allows for the opinion
of the customs officer to hold sway, while the other does not explicitly
grant this is a significant difference, IMO, (because the finding of Judges
and others may hold sway in the non opinion case), and I will get back to
this if it becomes necessary in rendering a judgement.

- --- end of facts/pseudo facts ---

The first thing to look at is the CFJ's statement, which is ambiguous:

> Pumpkin Patch Nomic is not a legal Trade Partner.

Does this mean 'PPN has not been legally designated as a Trade Partner
(despite the fact that it is legal to do so) and therefore is not
currently a Trade Partner (ie, its not legal to trade with them), or
'is it legal to designate PPN as a Trade Partner (as of the time the
CFJ was filed)'?

The statements look similar, but there are two important distinctions,
one of which is a temporal one, and the other is the referrant of 'legal'
(ie, legal to designate them, or legal to trade with them because they
have not been legally designated as a Trade Partner).  Thus a verdict
of INVALID may be indicated.  For another indication of INVALID, 
consider the following CFJ statement: 'The Estonian language contains
no prepositions'.  Clearly a statement that can be answered TRUE or FALSE;
yet being an extra-nomic statement that would probably be ruled INVALID.
I note these are *completely* different cases of INVALID.

Rather than rule INVALID here, I will attempt to explore the issue
further, and then see if the rules require me to rule INVALID, and
see if construing the statement more in an Ackanomic scope makes more
sense.

It would appear that the distinction raised above would not matter.
For example, if it can be shown that PPN does not have rules, (and
didn't from Apr 13th on) substantially similar to Acka's ETP, the
question is mute.  However, as I have indicated in the 'facts' section,
that cannot be determined with certainty, and I'm not so sure it
matters after all.

I quote an important section of rule 530, section 2a):

> Nomics [...] whose rulesets include a rule or rules substantially
> similar to Ackanomic's Entity Transfer Protocol will be designated
> Trade Partners of Ackanomic (in the opinion of the Customs Officers
> involved). The Customs Officer of Ackanomic shall have final
> authority to designate Trade Partners of Ackanomic, 

and section 2b):

> In order to be considered substantially similar to Ackanomic's
> Entity Transfer Protocol, a rule or rules must specify definitions
> for all of the properties listed in section 5 below, must specify 
> these definitions in such a way that they will not conflict with
> the definitions specified by the rules of Ackanomic, and must
> institute the inspection procedure describe in section 4 below. 

The key phrase in the first quoted section is 'in the opinion of the
Customs Officers involved'.  'opinion' does not require fact or
knowledge; if the Customs Officer *believes* the rules to be 
substantially similar, he is in compliance with this clause in 
designating another nomic a Trade Partner, even if, in fact, the rules
in question are not substantially similar.  Therefore it may be
legal to skirt the substantially similar issue altogether, in fact,
in rendering judgement.

The next quoted section goes on to discuss certain factual conditions
for the rules to be considered substantially similar.  When I first 
started looking into this, I thought this section would hold precedence
over the 'opinion' clause via the inter-rule precedence rule, but I
find the second section only establishes *necessary*, but not sufficient
conditions for the test for substantial similarity, and while that 
clause regulates substantial similarity determination, the 'opinion'
clause regulates Trade Partner designation.  Thus I find that even if
the PPN ETP rules do not measure up to the necessary conditions outlined
in the second section, it is sufficient for the Customs Officer to
have the *opinion* that they do, thus inter-rule precedence is not 
applicable here.  I also find that snowgod's first message designating
PPN as a Trade Partner demonstrated that he held that opinion, that PPN's
rules met the necessary conditions in the second section (as well as
other criteria) at that time, despite the fact that the factual evidence
indicates that PPN had called the CC before snowgod declared them a 
Trade Partner.  The problems of poor flow of facts, and continuously
tracking another nomic's game state.

Thus I find at that time that it was legal to designate them as a Trade
Partner, and that they were a legal Trade Partner, given the Customs
Officer's indicated opinion of their game state, which is difficult to
determine, thus opinion is of paramount importance.

The reliance on the 'opinion' clause in this reasoning may seem like
a cop-out.  However, I must point out that that is what the rule says,
and as discussed, information about another nomic's game state is not
as easily to determine as our own for reasons discussed at length
elsewhere, thus 'opinion' will have to have a huge sway, because
facts are uncertain and unverifyable.

This CFJ was filed April 15th; that is the time to which the statement
must be judged.  I again qoute snowgod's statement in response to the
CFJ, also made on the 15th: 

> [reference to CFJ 374's reasoning] is true.  Almost immediatly after
> I declared PPN a trade partner, they entered a constitutional
> convention phase.

snowgod declared PPN a Trade Partner on the 14th.  Based on this quoted
message, which must be assumed to represent a true statement of belief
in the absense of evidence to the contrary (despite the fact that the
statement represents false factual information, in my judgement), snowgod
changed his opinion of PPN's game state sometime between the time he
declared PPN a Trading Partner on the 14th, and the time of this statement
on the 15th, after the CFJ was filed.

Was this change of sentiment before or after the time of the CFJ?  In
my judgement, it was most likely before, because snowgod responded to
the CFJ rather quickly after it was posted on the list, and he himself
uses the word 'immediately' in that message (thus establishing that he
believes their game state changed on the 14th).  Based on the wording of
the message, I am inferring that snowgod was aware of PPN's game state
immediately (or soon after) he declared them a Trading Partner.  I 
acknowedge that this is not what the message says; I am making a
judgement here.  My only other recourse is to judge UNDECIDED, because
pinning down the time of snowgod's change of sentiment is critical.
If it comes to light that his change of sentiment occurred *after* the
time the CFJ was filed, it should be appealed and a verdict of FALSE
rendered, because either reading of the CFJ's statement leads to FALSE.

I have thus judged that at the time the CFJ was filed, snowgod was of
the opinion that PPN did not have a rule substantially similar to ETP.

Therefore, at the time the CFJ was filed, it would have been illegal 
for snowgod to declare them a Trading Partner for that reason (as opposed
to the reason that they were one already, which does not make it illegal).
However, at that time, they were a Trading Partner; this is where the
meaning of the CFJ's statement comes into question.

The the rendering of 'legal' in the CFJ's statement comes back:
 
> The statements look similar, but there are two important distinctions,
> one of which is a temporal one, and the other is the referrant of 'legal'
> (ie, legal to designate them, or legal to trade with them because they
> have not been legally designated as a Trade Partner).

They have been legally designated a Trading Partner via a process 
described in the rules, yet it is illegal to designate them as a Trading
Partner.

Depending on what is meant by the CFJ's statement, you can get either a
TRUE or FALSE verdict here.  From 211:

> CFJ's with no clear statement, [...] in the judgement of the Judge,
> shall be judged "Invalid".

In my judgement, the statement is not clear enough for me to choose
amongst these alternatives, and thus I have no choice but to,
regrettably, return INVALID. (At least from the facts and the reasoning,
the Initiator hopefully will get the information he wanted, if not a
definitive verdict :))

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:09:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Hints

> IdiotBoy
> fnord
> snowgod
> CarseraC
> Robert Sevin
> Malenkai
> Vynd
	Three right.

- -- 
Mohammed
While a single ape was with a babe, twenty gangsters stole all the
furniture.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:19:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Hints

IdiotBoy
snowgod
Malenkai
You can call me Al
ThinMan
breadbox
/dev/joe

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:52:10 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 Verdict 

To clear things up....

>2) snowgod designated (or attempted to designate) PPN to be a
>"Trade Partner" per rule 530, on Apr 14:
>
>> In my first act as Customs Officer, I am declaring Pumpkin Patch Nomic to
>> be a Trade Partner of Ackanomic, having found that they havbe similar ETP
>> rules.
Which they did at the time I made this declaration.  The PPN constitutuinal
convention convened afterwards (and afdter the results of PPN P486 were
released)

>I say 'attempted' because it may be found that this act was against the
>rules.
>
>3) Firsthand and antecdotal experience indicates that PPN may not have
>a rule even remotely similar to rule 530 or 531.  However, when I
>joined that nomic to do research for this CFJ, I received the following
>information, quoted below, from the nomic.  I note that it is unclear
>from this whether their game state has no rules, or whether they have
>rules which are suspended, or the game is in some other state.  Moreover,
>I cannot discern whether their game custom (if they even have game custom),
>allows for the Platonic existance of any rule whose existance is not
>explicitly provided for or regulated against.  It is possible (ie, *that*
>Platonic rule may exist ;)).  Therefore, it is with much trepidation
>that I would declare that they have no substantially similar rule to
>530 or 531; I cannot say that with finality.

Okay.  My job as ambassador is to provide information to players about
other nomics, so if you were unlclear on the state of pumpkin patch, you
should have asked me.  I subscribe to their list and participate in patch
discussions.  I recently became a seedling.

Anyway,  Play in the patch is currently being guided by only one rule, the
rest having been discarded dfuring the convention.  The rule is the one
that outlines patch procedure during the convention.  Play during the
convention is also guided largely by custom, with the players doing things
that aren't specified in the convention rule simply by agreement.

snowgod
Ambassador
seedling
neglected

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #53
******************************