Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #56
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Sunday, April 20 1997        Volume 02 : Number 056

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 01:27:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate

Vynd has been elected Senature 'Sinecure 33', with an actual
majority of the votes cast.

IdiotBoy (2)
- --------
Mohammed
breadbox
 
Niccolo Flychuck (3)
- ----------------
/dev/joe
Niccolo Flychuck
ThinMan

Vynd (8)
- ----
IdiotBoy
Malenkai
Evil Ballot Stuffer
Guy Fawkes
Vynd
Robert Sevin
mr cwm
Bascule

You can call me Al (2)
- ------------------
snowgod
You can call me Al

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:24:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai) 

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >> where would the fun be in "the old lightbulb bit" if I RFC's it first to
> >> garuntee that it worked?
> >
> >I think the point is being missed here, at least the point *I* was
> >trying to make.  An idea that Mohammed, Niccolo Flychuck, and myself
> >spentalot of bandwidth debating (internomc entity exchange), was
> >submitted by another player as their own without RFC, despite requests
> >for one, and despite requests that it be a collorabative project.
> 
> And I still say Niccolo recieved it, and I could have sworn you saw a copy
> to.  I don't remember of the top of my head whether I sent it to mohammed,
> but I would guess that I did.  I waited two weeks, and having recieved no
> reply, told Dr. West I was agreeable to this idea (in a *testing* type of
> phase) and submitted it.
> 

I never claimed that I did not receive it. I wrote some commentary on
this, and forwarded a copy of part of it to Malenkai, who might have
missed it, I think it was near the time he was away (or at a convention).

The fact that I participated in an earlier discussion does not make that
_my_ idea anymore than anyone else's.  The fact that I objected to parts
of it does no mean that snowgod should not have submitted it. He submitted
his proposal.
Snowgod might as well argue chronological precedence as he was the first
player to attempt transferring an entity, this whole 'who said it first'
does not seem relevant to me. It sound like something almost akin to
software patents. 
Yes, it is true that I participated in such a discussion, but then, I
participate in a lot of discussions. None of the above named players
followed up that discussion with a proposal. Does that mean that the idea
should remain locked forever to other players?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 00:40:55 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Observer 

We have a new observer in Ackanomic.  I have no idea what his real name is
(perhaps he'd care to enlighten us?).  His email adress is [email-masked].
PLease welcome him to Ackanomic.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 01:31:41 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: View From the Outside 

Some of you may find this interesting.  A certain observer may find it
startling.  "Our sies are everywhere" they say, and it's true.  Anyway, I
thought this was kind of funny, so I thought I'd pass it along.

snowgod
Ambassador

>...Yes, I do indeed lurk on the main Acka list. A place, I might add,
>dominated by the use of nouns and the constant wielding of objects and
>entities, not unlike a Friday night food fight, and often characterized by
>the same bonhommie.
>
>I have often been surprised that they have not yet figured out a way to
>commodify and objectify the Mighty Suction Cups holding their world in its
>place.
>
>Alix the Acka-turista

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:39:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Otzma Auction

Here are the results of the Otzma Card Auction

OCID 120 Map Shard  		/dev/joe A$35
OCID 123 Tactical Retreat	ThinMan A$3
OCID 124 Share My Expenses 	Malenkai A$30
OCID 125 Share your Income	Vynd A$30

Niccolo Flychuck
RuneMaker

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:47:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: New Observer 

> We have a new observer in Ackanomic.  I have no idea what
> his real name is
> (perhaps he'd care to enlighten us?).

Oh yeah.
Sorry.
My real name is Micah Smukler.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:01:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Overthrow

In accordance with rule 1060, I am attempting to overthrow the
Godfather.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:01:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 375 (snowgod)

snowgod has been chosen.

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

Call For Judgement 375
  Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (selected Apr 19, 1997, 12:01h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of a player, who has attempted to overthrow the Godfather,
speaking on behalf on the Narfalone family (ie, posting and taking bets)
7 days after the attempt was made, cannot be determined with finality
(in the general case where at least 2 players (4 if the current Godfather
is construed to be in the Narfalone Family) publically support the
overthrow attempt) when the Godfather is not an active player (or is
an active player but not actively playing).

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is a paradox win CFJ.  It is also the real-world case we face.

Rule 1060 describes the Narfalone Family.  The rule states explicitly
that Tammany is a member of the Narfalone Family (section 6).  The rule
does not state anyone else, including the Godfather, is a member of the
Narfalone Family, yet describes ways for players, including the Godfather,
to become members.  My reading of the rule indicates that the Godfather
is *not*, in fact, automatically a member, but for the purposes of this
argument, it matters not; it just changes the math as indicated in the
CFJ's statement.  I will assume not for the remainder of the argument.

There are N+1 members of the Narfalone Family, N non-negative.  It is
not publically knowable what N is.  Section 5 of the rule describes the
overthrow process:

> 5. Any member of the Narfalone Family can attempt to overthrow
> the Godfather by publicly stating eir intention to do so. This does
> not constitute an admittance of membership in the Narfalone Family. 
> If 2/3rds of the members of The Narfalone Family publicly acknowledge
> the challenger within one week, e shall become the new Godfather.

Once a player states their intention to overthrow the Godfather, this
process kicks in.  If K+2 (K non-negative) players support the overthrow
attempt, it cannot be determined with finality if (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) >= 2/3.
(A strict-constructionalist may say (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) = 2/3; however, game
custom, spirit of the game, and common sense have construed voting
ratios to be >=, not =, and even under this construction, the argument
holds in principle for certain values of K, and should not disqualify
the statement).  I also point out that the magnitude of the K+2 term 
cannot be determined with finality either, because the legality of a
player voting in favor of the overthrow (and thus adding to K+2) is
not publically knowable.  (Of course, we cannot know if the overthrow
attempt was legal in the first place either!).

We cannot know if the overthrow was successful, thus we cannot know if
the overthrowing player has become the Godfather, thus section 10
kicks in, which says only the Godfather may take actions on behalf of
the Narfalone Family; some of the possible actions being placing
and accepting wagers.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:04:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Overthrow

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> In accordance with rule 1060, I am attempting to overthrow the
> Godfather.

I support this overthrow attempt.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:45:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Otzma card usage

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> Here are the results of the Otzma Card Auction
> OCID 120 Map Shard  		/dev/joe A$35

I am using my Otzma Card Map Shard, OCID 120.
I am using it on Malenkai, on his treasure 122, consisting of
the Codex of Jara, The Golden Frog, an Automatic Sculpture, and a
Prosthetic Forehead.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (snowgod)

Anyone else find this argument almost impossible to read, let alone
understand?

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:03:37 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (snowgod)

> Anyone else find this argument almost impossible to read, let alone
> understand?
> 
> 
>                                    - Vynd

A bit tricky, but I think I get it.

I don't follow his math; with K players supporting the attempt and 
N+1 members, I'd have thought the equation was if K/(N+1)>=2/3 then 
the attempt succeeds, but I haven't checked out the rule and it 
doesn't matter anyway. 

If I've understood, the problem is deciding with finality,
publically knowability and all that. Only Da Godfather recieves
attempts to join the Narfalones, no outsider (eg a CFJ judge) can
rule on whether 2/3 of the members have supported the attempt to
overthrow the Godfather, since they have no way of knowing which
players are members. Apologies to Malenkai if I've misunderstood.

Bascule

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:03:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Politeness Moon

The results of the Politeness Moon called by snowgod against Malenkai
was 'Yes, it was polite'.  He may the nickname "Jazz Jackrabbit" for
the next 3 days.

Polite (9)
- ----------
IdiotBoy
Malenkai
ThinMan
/dev/joe
Antimatter
Mohammed
mr cwm
Robert Sevin
You can call me Al

Not Polite (2)
- -------------
snowgod
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:08:04 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (snowgod)

Bascule wrote:

> A bit tricky, but I think I get it.
> 
> I don't follow his math; with K players supporting the attempt and
> N+1 members, I'd have thought the equation was if K/(N+1)>=2/3 then
> the attempt succeeds, but I haven't checked out the rule and it
> doesn't matter anyway.

The math is a bit wrong, but fortuantely the Judge need not judge 
the reasoning, just the statement.  The argument is still holds valid
in light of the mis-typed math, which I can correct with a Bronze Torch
if necessary.  Of course, it looks like Bascule has corrected the math,
and he could do so if he wanted :)  As Bascule points out, the key
point is the publically knowable problem anyway.

Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:16:54 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bartender (mr cwm)

As described in rules 1115 and 1125, mr cwm has been selected Bartender,
although one could quibble with that 'as directed by the rules'
clause in 1115.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:59:13 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (snowgod) 

>snowgod has been chosen.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Call For Judgement 375
>  Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
>Initiator: Malenkai
>    Judge: snowgod (selected Apr 19, 1997, 12:01h EDT)
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:

I am declining judegement on this CFJ.  Don't have the time to do it write.
But it seems to me the original intent was for this Narfalones to discuss
this amongst themselves.  The godfather (and a few us in the innner
circle?) know who is and who is not a narfalone and would be able to
determine when the required number of votes were cast.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 11:02:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Shalom 

Shalom,

Happy Passover.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:37:52 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 375 (breadbox)

CFJ 375 has been reassigned to breadbox.

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

Call For Judgement 375
  Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (declined)
2nd Judge: breadbox (selected Apr 19, 1997, 20:37h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of a player, who has attempted to overthrow the Godfather,
speaking on behalf on the Narfalone family (ie, posting and taking bets)
7 days after the attempt was made, cannot be determined with finality
(in the general case where at least 2 players (4 if the current Godfather
is construed to be in the Narfalone Family) publically support the
overthrow attempt) when the Godfather is not an active player (or is
an active player but not actively playing).

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is a paradox win CFJ.  It is also the real-world case we face.

Rule 1060 describes the Narfalone Family.  The rule states explicitly
that Tammany is a member of the Narfalone Family (section 6).  The rule
does not state anyone else, including the Godfather, is a member of the
Narfalone Family, yet describes ways for players, including the Godfather,
to become members.  My reading of the rule indicates that the Godfather
is *not*, in fact, automatically a member, but for the purposes of this
argument, it matters not; it just changes the math as indicated in the
CFJ's statement.  I will assume not for the remainder of the argument.

There are N+1 members of the Narfalone Family, N non-negative.  It is
not publically knowable what N is.  Section 5 of the rule describes the
overthrow process:

> 5. Any member of the Narfalone Family can attempt to overthrow
> the Godfather by publicly stating eir intention to do so. This does
> not constitute an admittance of membership in the Narfalone Family.
> If 2/3rds of the members of The Narfalone Family publicly acknowledge
> the challenger within one week, e shall become the new Godfather.

Once a player states their intention to overthrow the Godfather, this
process kicks in.  If K+2 (K non-negative) players support the overthrow
attempt, it cannot be determined with finality if (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) >= 2/3.
(A strict-constructionalist may say (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) = 2/3; however, game
custom, spirit of the game, and common sense have construed voting
ratios to be >=, not =, and even under this construction, the argument
holds in principle for certain values of K, and should not disqualify
the statement).  I also point out that the magnitude of the K+2 term
cannot be determined with finality either, because the legality of a
player voting in favor of the overthrow (and thus adding to K+2) is
not publically knowable.  (Of course, we cannot know if the overthrow
attempt was legal in the first place either!).

We cannot know if the overthrow was successful, thus we cannot know if
the overthrowing player has become the Godfather, thus section 10
kicks in, which says only the Godfather may take actions on behalf of
the Narfalone Family; some of the possible actions being placing
and accepting wagers.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:04:16 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 375 (IdiotBoy)

CFJ 375 has been reassigned to IdiotBoy.  breadbox was not a valid
assignment.  Sorry 'bout that.

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

Call For Judgement 375
  Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (declined)
2nd Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Apr 19, 1997, 21:03h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of a player, who has attempted to overthrow the Godfather,
speaking on behalf on the Narfalone family (ie, posting and taking bets)
7 days after the attempt was made, cannot be determined with finality
(in the general case where at least 2 players (4 if the current Godfather
is construed to be in the Narfalone Family) publically support the
overthrow attempt) when the Godfather is not an active player (or is
an active player but not actively playing).

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is a paradox win CFJ.  It is also the real-world case we face.

Rule 1060 describes the Narfalone Family.  The rule states explicitly
that Tammany is a member of the Narfalone Family (section 6).  The rule
does not state anyone else, including the Godfather, is a member of the
Narfalone Family, yet describes ways for players, including the Godfather,
to become members.  My reading of the rule indicates that the Godfather
is *not*, in fact, automatically a member, but for the purposes of this
argument, it matters not; it just changes the math as indicated in the
CFJ's statement.  I will assume not for the remainder of the argument.

There are N+1 members of the Narfalone Family, N non-negative.  It is
not publically knowable what N is.  Section 5 of the rule describes the
overthrow process:

> 5. Any member of the Narfalone Family can attempt to overthrow
> the Godfather by publicly stating eir intention to do so. This does
> not constitute an admittance of membership in the Narfalone Family.
> If 2/3rds of the members of The Narfalone Family publicly acknowledge
> the challenger within one week, e shall become the new Godfather.

Once a player states their intention to overthrow the Godfather, this
process kicks in.  If K+2 (K non-negative) players support the overthrow
attempt, it cannot be determined with finality if (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) >= 2/3.
(A strict-constructionalist may say (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) = 2/3; however, game
custom, spirit of the game, and common sense have construed voting
ratios to be >=, not =, and even under this construction, the argument
holds in principle for certain values of K, and should not disqualify
the statement).  I also point out that the magnitude of the K+2 term
cannot be determined with finality either, because the legality of a
player voting in favor of the overthrow (and thus adding to K+2) is
not publically knowable.  (Of course, we cannot know if the overthrow
attempt was legal in the first place either!).

We cannot know if the overthrow was successful, thus we cannot know if
the overthrowing player has become the Godfather, thus section 10
kicks in, which says only the Godfather may take actions on behalf of
the Narfalone Family; some of the possible actions being placing
and accepting wagers.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 18:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (snowgod)

> Anyone else find this argument almost impossible to read, let alone
> understand?

On the contrary: as soon as I saw Malenkai's statement that he was
attempting to overthrow the Godfather, I realized that we had this
problem.

The basic problem is that there is only one player who is actually
designated by the rules as being empowered to determine with authority
who is and is not a member of Organized Crime. If that player is not
around to indicate whether or not the overthrow attempt succeeded....

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 18:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (breadbox)

> CFJ 375 has been reassigned to breadbox.

As much as I would enjoy this CFJ, I am not a legal selection.

breadbox
Justice

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 21:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (IdiotBoy)

On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Jazz Jackrabbit wrote:

> CFJ 375 has been reassigned to IdiotBoy.  breadbox was not a valid
> assignment.  Sorry 'bout that.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgement 375
>   Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: snowgod (declined)
> 2nd Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Apr 19, 1997, 21:03h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 

I hope this doesn't cause extraordinary distress, but I wish to decline
judgement, as well.  Chances are I would be overturned on appeal, anyway.

IB

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

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:49:43 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 375 (fnord)

CFJ 375 has been reassigned to fnord.

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

Call For Judgement 375
  Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (declined)
2nd Judge: IdiotBoy (declined)
3rd Judge: fnord (selected Apr 19, 1997, 22:49h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of a player, who has attempted to overthrow the Godfather,
speaking on behalf on the Narfalone family (ie, posting and taking bets)
7 days after the attempt was made, cannot be determined with finality
(in the general case where at least 2 players (4 if the current Godfather
is construed to be in the Narfalone Family) publically support the
overthrow attempt) when the Godfather is not an active player (or is
an active player but not actively playing).

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is a paradox win CFJ.  It is also the real-world case we face.

Rule 1060 describes the Narfalone Family.  The rule states explicitly
that Tammany is a member of the Narfalone Family (section 6).  The rule
does not state anyone else, including the Godfather, is a member of the
Narfalone Family, yet describes ways for players, including the Godfather,
to become members.  My reading of the rule indicates that the Godfather
is *not*, in fact, automatically a member, but for the purposes of this
argument, it matters not; it just changes the math as indicated in the
CFJ's statement.  I will assume not for the remainder of the argument.

There are N+1 members of the Narfalone Family, N non-negative.  It is
not publically knowable what N is.  Section 5 of the rule describes the
overthrow process:

> 5. Any member of the Narfalone Family can attempt to overthrow
> the Godfather by publicly stating eir intention to do so. This does
> not constitute an admittance of membership in the Narfalone Family.
> If 2/3rds of the members of The Narfalone Family publicly acknowledge
> the challenger within one week, e shall become the new Godfather.

Once a player states their intention to overthrow the Godfather, this
process kicks in.  If K+2 (K non-negative) players support the overthrow
attempt, it cannot be determined with finality if (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) >= 2/3.
(A strict-constructionalist may say (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) = 2/3; however, game
custom, spirit of the game, and common sense have construed voting
ratios to be >=, not =, and even under this construction, the argument
holds in principle for certain values of K, and should not disqualify
the statement).  I also point out that the magnitude of the K+2 term
cannot be determined with finality either, because the legality of a
player voting in favor of the overthrow (and thus adding to K+2) is
not publically knowable.  (Of course, we cannot know if the overthrow
attempt was legal in the first place either!).

We cannot know if the overthrow was successful, thus we cannot know if
the overthrowing player has become the Godfather, thus section 10
kicks in, which says only the Godfather may take actions on behalf of
the Narfalone Family; some of the possible actions being placing
and accepting wagers.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #56
******************************