Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #107
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, June 2 1997         Volume 02 : Number 107

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Public voting

The problem I have with the idea of the public voting amendment is
that it doesn't seem to give us anything we don't already have.
Nothing is stopping any of us from CC'ing our votes to the public
list, and/or attempting to leverage such. In fact on several occasions
in the past people have made their votes available to the highest
bidder, or similar such ploys.

If I understand correctly, all this suggested proposal will do is to
eliminate the option of voting privately. It won't add anything that
we don't have now, it just takes away a choice.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:45:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Building an Oscar

I wrote about 3 days ago:
> I am building an Oscar.
> The Oscar will be completed when its blueprint has existed for a week.

Stupid me.  I should read the rules before doing stuff like this.

By the most recent amendment to R594, the creation of the Blueprint for
Oscar destroyed one of my processing chips, and furthermore:

  An attempt to create a new Blueprint fails if its text does not (a)
  introduce exactly one new type of Gadget, (b) name the new Gadget type,
  and (c) unambiguously define the behavior of such a Gadget. A blueprint
  may state a requirement of various raw materials.  Such raw materials
  must include a number of Processing Chips equal to at least half those
  used in creating the original Blueprint; if no other raw materials are
  specified, then the Processing Chips are all that is required.

I think this means that raw materials of half a processing chip are required,
although the wording is slightly muddled.  If it does, then my earlier
attempt failed because I failed to provide processing chips (R595):

    (iv) The ability to create Gadgets is a Privilege of a Scientist. A
  Scientist may create a Gadget only by performing these tasks, in this order:

     (a) choosing a type from those defined by existing Blueprints. If the
  gadget requires raw material, the Scientist may use that provided by a
  player or from the Treasury. The raw materials used are destroyed.

In the interest of getting the thing built, if I'm not already building
a gadget, I'm trying again to build an Oscar, using half of one of my
processing chips as raw materials.  Fortunately, due to the 7-day-existence
clause on gadget building, this will not delay the finishing of the gadget.

BTW, this has some other interesting side-effects; see Rule 595.

I certainly hope these half processing chips get cleaned up.
We try to avoid fractional entities in Acka, and although there are
restrictions that prevent some types of entities from being split
into pieces, I don't think anything prevents the rules from taking
a half a processing chip here.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:36:06 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: June Issue of ApparentDepth

Hey guys,

It's me, Phil (or snowgod or Mr. Nacho or whatever elese you know me as).
Sorry to be spamming you like this, but I just got the word that the June
issue of apperant depth is out, and guess who's writing is in it? Me!  Who
would have thought it?

Anyway, please, oh please, check it out, and while you are at it, send mail
to Natalie, the editor, and tell her what you think.

Thanks a million,
Phil

By the way, If I ower you an email or something let me know.  I've been so
busy lately that I'm not sure who I have and haven't responded too.

>Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:27:37 -0700
>From: Natalie DuPont <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Well, folks, spread the word -- the June 1997 issue of ApparentDepth is
>online!  We've got lots of new stuff and new authors to check out.
>
>- ApparentlyDeep Thoughts presents takes a peek at "thanatopsis" (don't
>look it up -- just check out our new essay)
>
>- Tag-Team Fiction offers up a new writer and a new chapter for "The
>Last Road Trip"
>
>- Petri Dish continues the Ring cycle with "Siegfried"
>
>- Blast From The Past takes a page from Tim Allen's book with "You know
>you're a GenX-er if..."
>
>- And, of course, there are plenty of fun new links
>
>Give us a look this month and see why we're getting critical acclaim!
>Offer your comments, suggestions, and contributions.
>
>Peace,
>-Natalie
>ApparentDepth
>http://www.apparentdepth.com
>
>
>PS:  Don't forget to check out our 1st Anniversary issue the first week
>of July, too!  We'll have a shiny new "themed" issue to kick off our 2nd
>year:  American Culture and the Year 2000.  Please contact me if you
>know anyone who would like to contribute to next month's issue.
>Deadline = 6/25.
>

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:49:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2036

> Proposal 2036
> Increasing the Alien's Odds
> Malenkai

I am retracting this proposal.

Jun 02 6:48 EDT: -2 Malenkai: #retract proposal 2036

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:14:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 379 Verdict

CFJ 379 official verdict post.  As for whether or not the Goose is
transferred, I was not following that discussion.  The previous
release of this verdict indictaed that the Goose *was* transferred
as a result of this verdict.  I will go with whatever decision was
reached in my absense.

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

Call For Judgement 379
  Subject: A Tounge Twisting Paradox
Initiator: Atilla the Pun
    Judge: two-star (Failed to deliver Verdict)
2nd Judge: ThinMan
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The legality of an Acting Senator voting to confirm the appointment of
a Justice, in the case where the Senator replaced by the Acting Senator
is not on Vacation, cannot be determined with finality.

Atilla the Pun's Reasoning:

This is a Paradox Win CFJ.

First, the applicable rules and rulings:
[all statements in brackets other than this one are my own
clarifications based on the way I cut the documents.]

>From Rule 416:xJustices are appointed by the President and confirmed by Senate vote.x

Rule 411:
The Office of Senator has four Seats. The Speaker is not eligible to
hold this office. The Senators are collectively an Institution known as
the Senate. The Speaker or Acting Speaker is the titular head of the
Senate, with the title of ProConsul. When a Senate vote is tied, the
ProConsul may cast a tiebreaking vote on the matter in question.

>From Rule 409:x(ii) Duties:
The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the Officer(s) are expected
to carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business. Duties
tend to be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and distribution
of information.

(iii) Privileges:
The Privileges of an Office are the considerations the Officer(s)
receive according to the Rules regulating the Office. Examples can
include the receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast extra
votes in certain circumstance, or special consideration with regards to
making appointments or issuing CFJ decisions.

(iv) Acting Officers:
The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player serves in an
Office in an "Acting" capacity. In such a case, the Player is
responsible for performing all of the Duties without receiving any of
the Privileges of the Office, except for Privileges which are also
explicitly defined to be Duties by the rules, or Privileges required to
perform explicitly defined Duties, or Privileges of the office when the
Acting officer is filling in for a vacationing player. For any given
Seat, there can be an "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant.
Non-voting players may only be acting officers for offices which may
normally be held by non-voting players.x

>From CFJ 223:xClearly the vote [to confirm a justice] is to "carry out to facilitate
the conduct of Ackanomic business".  Confirming Justices is Ackanomic
business, thus a "duty" from (ii) above.

Clearly it is also "the ability to cast extra votes in certain
circumstance, or special consideration with regards to making
appointments", thus a privilege from (iii) above.

Therefore it is both a duty and a privilege.x

By the reasoning used by Malenkai in CFJ 223, the confirmation of
Justices is a Duty associated with the office of Senator. Therefore, an
Acting Senator must vote to confirm a Justice.

However, again by Malenkai's reasoning, the confirmation of Justices is
also a Privilege. Therefore, an Acting Senator may only perform it if
one of the following conditions is true:

(a) It is a Privilege which is also explicitly defined to be a Duty by
the rules
(b) It is a Privilege which is required to perform explicitly defined
Duties
(c) The Acting officer is filling in for a Vacationing player.

Obviously, (c) is not the case; this was part of the hypothetical
situation set up by the statement.

At first glance, the confirmation of a Justice appears to meet
criterion (a). Though confirmation, by Malenkai's reasoning, is a
Privilege, it is also a Duty. However, nowhere in the ruleset does it
explicitly state that confirmation of Justices is in fact a Duty of
Senators; this fact must be inferred from the definition of a Duty.

The definition rule for the Senate (Rule 411, above) does not
explicitly define any Duties, nor, to my knowledge, are there any
explicitly defined Duties of the Office of Senator anywhere else in the
Rules.  Even if there are, it is difficult to see how a Duty could
exist for which it is necessary to confirm a Justice, except for the
Duty of confirming Justices. Therefore, since this Duty is nowhere
explicitly defined, the Privilege of confirming Justices fails part
(b), above.

Since confirmation of Justices is a Privilege for which none of the
above conditions apply, then, by Rule 409, an Acting Senator may not
confirm a Justice. However, since confirmation of Justices is also a
Duty, it is possible for an Acting Senator to confirm a Justice, again
by Rule 409. Therefore, it is both legal and illegal for the Acting
Senator to confirm the Justice, causing a state of paradox.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I first note that the rule referred to as number 409 by the initiator
appears to actually be R401.

I am satisfied with the initiator's reasoning that an acting Senator
may not vote to confirm a Justice under the stipulated circumstances.
I am not, however, satisfied with his reasoning that an acting Senator
also may do so.  Rules 411 and 416 are no help -- Justices are
confirmed by the Senate, collective, which does not counterindicate any
illegality of any individual Senator or acting Senator participating in
such a decision.  For the sake of argument, I will accept as
the customary interpretation that voting in confirmation hearings is a
Duty of the office of Senator.  Nevertheless, the rules nowhere
indicate that officers are in general required, or even permitted, to
perform those tasks that are specified or interpreted as Duties of
their offices.  In almost every case, the defined duties are tasks that
are legal by default; the mere fact of a task being a duty does not
necessarilly confer legality upon the performance of that task.  Nor
does the possibility of negative consequences for failure to perform a
Duty confer any legality upon such performance.

Even under the assumption that voting in confirmation hearings is a
Duty of the office of Senator, I find no indication in the Rules to
contradict the finding that in certain special circustances individual
acting Senators may not legally participate in such a vote.  I
therefore find this CFJ FALSE.

I would like to acknowledge two-star, who submitted a late, but
substantially similar judgement.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:16:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 380 Verdict

CFJ 380 Verdict repost

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

Call For Judgement 380
  Subject: Non-Volunteering Mentor Payments
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

If a non-volunteering mentor is selected, he receives the A$25 payment for
mentoring only after he accepts the assignment.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

See rules 252 and 253.  It is quite possible that the opposite is true --
that he gets the A$25 immediately, even if he then declines the selection;
in that case, the next mentor selected also gets A$25.  I need to know, one
way or the other.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

In the back of my mind I have this nagging feeling that I accepted CFJ
about Mentors, and I was going to judge it false, and I can't find a
record of it.

Anyway, if I indeed accepted this CFJ, and haven't missed the deadline,and
if it me legal for me to do so, thenI am judging it false, I think that
mentors, regardless of whether they are on the mentor list  are allt
reated identically (sorry for this way informal format - packing packing
packing)

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:20:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 382 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 382 appeal verdict repost.

The Supreme Court has upheld the original verdict of CFJ 382.

Jun 02 7:19 EDT: -25 Guy Fawkes: friviously bothering the Judges(382)

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

Call For Judgment
  Subject: Pragmatic Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: /dev/joe
Judgement: FALSE
Appeal Verdict: FALSE

Statement:

If a player attempts to create a Trinket whose value exceeds
the number of A$ in his possession, and the impossibility of this act
goes unreported for the next two weeks, following the two-week period of
non-reporting, it appears equally legal and illegal for that player to
trade the impossibly created Trinket (in the case where manipulation of
that Trinket has not been attempted since its creation).

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:

As (Mohammed?) once said, "Retroactivity is blood in the water for paradox
sharks."

In this scenario (Actually, any situation where the acceptance of an
impossible change to the game state has a effect on the legality of later
actions would have worked), a player attempts to create a Trinket which e
cannot afford.  Rule 506 governs the creation of Trinkets.

> A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its name,
> description, and value, as long as the player has
> at least as many A$ as the announced value. Upon doing so, the
> stated amount of A$ is transformed into the
> Trinket, and the creating player becomes the owner of the Trinket.

Clearly, the for a player to create a Trinket with a higher value than e
has A$ is against the Rules.  Rule 713 defines two classes of such
actions, a class of illegal actions (non-retractable errors), which
occur, but are punishable, and a class of of impermissible or impossible
actions (retractable errors), which cannot occur, although the attempt is
punishable.  Both these classes fall under the broader category of
Crimes, which also includes actions which are entirely within the rules
but nonetheless punishable, such as submitting substantially similar
proposals.

> To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime. An
> action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by contrast,
> impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action is a Crime
> [even though the action itself does not occur].

A reading of the Trinket rule, as well as game custom and practice (take,
for example, CarsesraC's recent attempted creation of the A$1000 "rule
book of rings" trinkets) classifies the attempted creation of a Trinket
whose value exceeds the account balance of the creating player among the
"impossible" or "impermissible" (retractable) class of rule violations.
It does not occur, and the attempt to make it occur is a Crime.

Rule 713 goes on to attempt to add an element of pragmatism to impossible
and illegal actions.  Herein, however, lies the paradox.

> If, however, the illegally or impossiblility of a publically knowable
> change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
> action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it
> is still a Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred retroactively to
> the time of the attempt. The preceeding does not apply to the case of
> events which occur automatically, but whose occurrance is not (or
> erroneously) reported [e.g., loss of the Great Trombone]. This
> paragraph has precedence over rule 103.

As established above, the act of creating a Trinket for which one has
insufficent A$ is not an illegal act for the purposes of Rule 713, since
Rule 713 uses illegal to specifically refer to the class of
non-retractable, yet punishable, Rule violations.  It is, instead, an
impossible or impermissible act in the sense of Rule 713, which uses
those terms to describe retractable errors -- violations of the rules
which do not occur.

In the scenario with which this CFJ concerns itself, after the two-week
period of non-reporting, the "pragmatism clause" generates a retroactive
change to the game state; namely, it causes that particular instance of
the (in this case) impossible action to "legal, but... still a Crime".
This amusing arrangement of words is not in itself paradoxical, for Crime
in specfic Ackanomic usage refers to a very broad class of actions with
little in common save that they are all subject to CFCJ.  Some Crimes are
against the Rules and others are not.  "Legal" is used throughout the
Ruleset to refer to actions, names, entities, and other facets of the
game state which do not violate the rules.  Therefore, the effect of the
Rule 713's retroactive game state change is to cause the hitherto
impossible Trinket creation to become legal (within the rules), though to
remain a Crime (an action punishable by CFCJ).

>From both a legalistic point of view (the impossible/impermissible classof game state changes is against the rules, whereas legal changes to the
game state are not) and in common language (an impossible event cannot
occur; therefore all events which occur are not impossible), the effect
of the "pragmatism clause" is to retroactively cause the normally
impossible Trinket creation to be not impossible.

(Aside: The purpose of the retroactivity is clear.  Had after creating
it, Player A traded it to Player B, who donated it to the Museum thereby
raising his BV above A$5000 and winning the cyle, causing the position of
Archaeologist to transfer from Player C to D, allowing D to create a new
OMCL, which was immediately used by Player E to obtain...  Rewinding the
game state for the other, unexpected but true thread is difficult if not
impossible, perhaps destroying weeks of play.)

However, this useful retroactivity causes a paradox: because Rule 713
changed the game state to make the impossible Trinket creation legal at
the time of the Trinket's creation, the Trinket creation is no longer
impossible (it occurred, didn't it?), and so Rule 713 is deprived of a
legal basis for altering the game state to its current one.  Of course,
if Rule 713 doesn't alter the game state, then the Trinket creation is
impossible, allowing it to be altered by Rule 713, thus depriving Rule
713 of the ability to alter it, and so forth...

It's a rephrasing of the time paradox of going back in time to murder
one's ancestor.

Retroactivity _is_ blood in the water for paradox sharks.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

The situation described in the CFJ is (briefly) that a player attempts to
create a trinket with more A$ than he owns, the impossibility of this is
not reported for 14 days, and then the third paragraph of rule 713 kicks in,
retroactively making the action legal.

Guy claims that the retroactivity causes a paradox, that once Rule 713
makes the action legal, Rule 713 no longer applies since the action is
no longer impossible or illegal, and that this causes Rule 713 to have
never triggered in the first place, which means it *can* trigger, etc.

However, Rule 713 only retroactively makes things legal.  It doesn't
retroactively make things illegal, nor does it retroactively undo its
own effects.  The only thing it does retroactively is make an illegal
or impossible action become legal.  So once the conditions for making
the illegal trinket creation retroactively legal occur, Rule 713
retroactively makes it legal.  After this, it cannot retroactively make
it legal again because the conditions for doing so cannot be met again,
but this doesn't matter because the action is already legal.

If the illegality of the creation of a trinket worth more A$ than a
player has goes unreported for 14 days, the creation becomes legal.

Sometimes when paradox sharks smell blood, blood is all they swallow.
The bleeding man hasn't totally escaped yet though -- there may still
be a paradox with this rule, but this isn't it.

Appellate comments:

Both the original judge and I agree on two things.
1) The effect of the "pragmatism clause" is to retroactively make an
illegal or impossible game action legal.
2) It can only do this once, and has no other direct game effects.

The original judge, however, is mistaken about the ramifications of this
change.  The "pragmatism clause" does not have to make a legal action
illegal retroactively or _directly_ undermine its own action for paradox
to exist.  Because it has a retroactive effect, it can be thought of as
a "retroactive cause", whose effect is the legality of the normally
impossible action.  This legality has several proactive (forward or
normal causality) game effects;  for example, once legally created, the
trinket can be traded, which it could not be if it had never been
legally created.  Another of these proactive effects is that two weeks
after the legal creation of the trinket, the "pragmatism clause" cannot
kick in -- an illegal game state change has not gone unquestioned for
two weeks.

The only way in which the normally impossible trinket creation can be
legal is by the action of the "pragmatism clause".  The pragmatism
clause only applies to illegal or impossible changes to the game state
that go unquestioned for two weeks.  Therefore, if the game state change
is legal (even if its legality is based solely on the "pragmatism
clause") the pragmatism clause cannot make it legal.  Thus, no
non-paradoxical threads in which the trinket is created exist.

If, however, the trinket creation is illegal, and no one questions its
creation, it is not illegal due to the action of the pragmatism clause.
Thus, no non-paradoxical threads in which the trinket is not created,
yet no one questions its creation, exist.

Basically, no game thread can contain both the retroactive legalization
of the trinket creation and the legal creation of the trinket, nor can a
game thread contain the unchallenged illegal creation attempt of the
trinket, and that creations continued illegality.

The retroactive change to the game state inititates a host of proactive
changes, one of which eliminates the original retroactive game change.

Most simply, the retroactive cause and the retroactive effect cannot
co-exist in the same thread.  Effects must have causes, and causes must
have effects.  Paradox.

If the Supreme Court disagrees, I would appreciate in its reasoning a
non-paradoxical game thread in which the normally impossible trinket
creations is either definitively legal or illegal, and no one questions
its legality.  Such a thread should begin slightly before the creation
of the Trinket, end slightly more than two-weeks later, and be
self-consistent.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Here is one game thread that the Court feels meets the request that
Guy Fawkes' makes in the last paragraph of his appeal reasoning:

May 01, time 0000: player A owns A$50.
May 01, time 0001: player A attempts to creates a trinket worth A$100,
                   which is legal by Rule 713 and therefore succeeds.
May 15, time 0002: player B notices that player A did not have enough
                   A$ to create eir trinket.

And here is another such thread:

May 01, time 0000: player A owns A$50.
May 01, time 0001: player A attempts to create a trinket worth A$100,
                   which is illegal by Rule 506 and therefore fails.
May 15, time 0000: player B notices that player A did not have enough
                   A$ to create eir trinket.

Neither of these threads contains a paradox.

The difficulty that Guy Fawkes describes in integrating the seemingly
incommensurable retroactive effects of the scenario seems to stem from
attempting to assign causes and effects a bit too freely. When the
illegality of an action goes unnoticed, Rule 713 does not climb into a
time machine on the fourteenth day and go back and make the event
legal (only to discover upon its return that it never had a time
machine in the first place). It merely provides one of the criteria
for determining if a game action is legal or not. Did a rule declare
the action impermissible? If yes, did it go unnoticed for two weeks?
If again yes, then it was legal, and at no time is it considered to be
otherwise.

To look at it another way, Rule 713 does not cause a retroactive
effect so much as it causes the original thread split. A thread split
occurs when a determination of the game state requires information
that is not yet available. (Platonists may interpret "determination"
in the previous sentence as referring to the discovery of where the
game state currently is, and non-Platonists may use the interpretation
that the game state is actually *indeterminate* until the information
is obtained. Both interpretations serve equally well here.) In the
past, CFJs have been the most common vehicle of thread splits; in such
a case, it is the final judgement that is the future information
needed to determine the game state. (And in fact Rule 215 also gives
CFJs the power of retroactivity.)

Viewing events this way, when a player attempts to create a trinket
they cannot afford, Rule 713 causes a thread split to occur at that
moment. In one thread, their action was successful and legal. In the
other thread, their action was unsuccessful and illegal. Note that if
Rule 713 had no "pragmatism" clause, there could be no thread in which
the action could succeed, and so in a very real way, Rule 713 causes
the thread split. Now, how do we determine which thread is the real
one? Rule 713 tells us how. If someone notices that the action was
illegal in less than two weeks after the attempt, the threads collapse
at the moment they report the fact, and the "unsuccessful" thread is
the real one. Otherwise, both threads remain viable until exactly two
weeks after the original act, at which point they collapse with the
"successful" thread being the real one.

Clearly, at no time is there a paradox in either thread, nor does Rule
713 at any point remove its own jurisdiction out from under itself.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:24:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 383 (Robert Sevin)

Robert Sevin has been chosen.

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

Call For Judgment 383
  Subject: Partial Repeals
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: IdiotBoy (left the game)
2nd Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Jun 02, 1997, 7:24h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The acceptance of proposal 1992 does not cause rule 207 or rule 709 to
be changed in any way.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Proposal 1992 contained the following two provisions:

        Repeal Rule 207, Section V [Effect of Proposals which do not
        meet Quorum]

        Repeal Rule 709, paragraph 4.  [Players in Gaol and Quorum]

The potential problem with these is that it is questionable whether it
is possible to "repeal" _parts_ of rules.

The rules no longer specify in detail what changes may be made to the
rules.  Until recently, however, they indicated that rules could be
created, amended, or repealed.  No room was allowed for repeal of
parts of rules.  Indeed, the effect that Guy Fawkes intended to achieve
may have been an amendment of the rules in question.

Because the rules no longer specify explicitly whether the changes
indicated by P1992 are legal, we must fall back on game custom to
interpret the rules.  In the past we have excised parts of rules by
amending the rules, not by attempting to "repeal" those parts.  To
whatever extent that indicates custom, the questionable clauses of
P1992 may be ineffective.  Alternatively, the judge only need find
that an attempt to "repeal" part of a rule is meaningless.

I cite Rule 104:

        If the proposal consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as
        changes to the rules, then those effects shall be applied, one
        at a time, in the order in which they appear in the proposal.
        (Ambiguous, conditional, retroactive, and/or meaningless effects
        are ignored.)

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:28:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 384 (Guy Fawkes)

Guy Fawkes has been chosen.  I realise a verdict on this has already
been delivered in another plane.  I wonder if game custom can be
retroactively undone? ;-)

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

Call For Judgment 384
  Subject: Possible Polythiesm
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Jun 02, 1997, 7:28h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

A player can be a member of more than one Church at a time.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

According to Rule 102, "Resolving Conflicts", if two sections of the same
rule conflict, and there is no other section of the rule that resolves the
conflict, then the statement occurring later in the rule takes precedence.
I quote the revelant sections of Rule 1301, "Churches":

(Rule 1301)
      6. A player may not be a member of more than one Church at the same
time.

7. a. Any player may petition the Founder of a Church for membership
in that Church.
b. If Church Policy has nothing to say on accepting new members, then
Church membership will be up to the Founder. However, a Player cannot
become a member of a Church until the Founder of the Church sends a
public announcement to that effect.

So, in essence, clause 6 applies only so long as it does not contradict the
Church Founder's own whims regarding membership of eir Church, whose effect
on Church membership takes precedence by occurring later in the rule.  No
player can belong to more than once Church at a time, unless the founders of
the latterly-joined Churches decide that they are willing to accept the
player.  (Subject to Church Policy, of course, but there is nothing to say
that Church Policy has to reject players who are already members of
Churches, either.)  Clause 6 is thus entirely nullified by Clause 7, since
it can be ignored by Church Founders and makers of Church Policy with
impunity.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:32:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 392 (Antimatter)

[Antimatter] (sorry I forget the new name, and its not on the pe page)
has been chosen.

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

Call For Judgment 392
  Subject: Where's that pate?
Initiator: Bascule
    Judge: [Antimatter] (selected Jun 02, 1997, 7:32h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

For Bascule to give A$10 to Alfvaen is equally legal and illegal.

Bascule's Reasoning:

Bascule has two contracts binding his actions. The contracts demand
that he gives A$10 to Alfvaen, and that he does not give any A$
to Alfvaen. There is no means for deciding precedence between
contracts, and therefore the action of giving the A$ is equally legal
and illegal.

The first contract:

"Bascule must give A$10 to Alfvaen"

The second contract:

"Bascule must not give any A$ to Alfvaen"

>From Rule 1995:"Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
restrictions that that contract places on em"

The player _must obey_ any restrictions. This means that if I were to
give A$10 to Alfvaen, this would be legal according to the first
contract, but illegal according to the second. If I do not give any
A$ to Alfvaen, this is illegal according to the first contract, but
legal according to the second.

As the restrictions imposed by my two contracts are contradictory,
the legality of my giving A$10 to Alfvaen is equally legal and
illegal, since no precedence exists regarding contracts.

Sorry to be so lame, but my elegant example got nuked. And I wasted
A$331.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 07:36:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 393 (two-star)

two-star has been chosen.

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

Call For Judgment 393
  Subject: OMCL Trade
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: two-star (selected Jun 02, 1997, 7:36h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

  /dev/joe did not in fact accept a trade of his vending machine for
  a Large Wooden Block, but was in fact a victim of an Orbital Mind
  Control Laser.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

See Mohammed's message:

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:08:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  steal!

I am powering up my Orbital Mind Control Laser.  The zap-ee
is... /dev/joe.  I am zapping /dev for the trade Guy Fawkes recently
offered:  the Large Wooden Block for a Vending Machine.

This means the Add-On becomes unstrapped.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:03:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Techno)

The web page has Antimatter finding Phoebe on May 20th.  I'll
assume her matchbox has gone missing.

Techno has been fortunate enough to find her.

Jun 02 8:02 EDT: -3 Antimatter: did not report what Phoebe said

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:08:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato + Aliens

CnH has found the Magic Potato.  I have no idea who has the
tuba; I'll get the transfer syntax next week.

Alien rolls:

1509
1369
1690

None of these are rules.  They are not all prime.  The aliens put
back the old rule at some point.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:14:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web-Harfing

Most all the web pages I maintain are up to date (CotC, Trinkets,
Treasure..).  If you want more clues added to your treasure, let
me know, like it says on the web page, I usually just guess if something
is a clue or guess and belongs on the page.  It is all unofficial.

The CotC page is up to date in the CFJ 390 not appealed thread :), and
all the CFJs have been redistributed per that analysis.  breadbox no
longer need maintain his page.  Thx.

Pages not yet up to date are Current Events and Internomic.  The only
current events I know of are the upcoming Mad Scientist election, and
a couple of auctions.  I will not update the auctions this time, because
I do not have the details this time.

Malenkai
Assistant web-harfer

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:33:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where's my SVH? :)

>My e-mail is all gizzed out, because the pop3 server will not delete
>the 970 e-mails; in fact it has doubled them and now says I have about
>
>BTW, if someone can tell me the state of the Mad Scientist selection
>process, I would be most grateful. 

  BwaHaHaHa!!!  This all falls into my plan most foul!  They laughed at me
in Rishonomic.  Player of Acka, they said!  Immigration policy, they said!
But I shall show them!  I shall create a monster so foul they will *beg*
to play Acka again!  And I shall show them at last - it is not *I* who am
crazy, it is I who am *Crazy French-Scotsman*!!!

  Vote Red Barn for Mad Scientist...

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:00:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Where's my SVH? :)

Vynd wrote:

> I can't recall when Malenkai left on vacation, but might he be
> eligible
> for a silly vacation hat now that he is back?
> 
Well, yes and no.  A Mad Hatter _should_ have been selected for him
when he had been gone for two weeks.  I failed to choose one -- it
just slipped through the cracks, even though Malenkai warned me before
he left that it would be coming up.  For that I make a public apology.
I have also submitted a CFCJ against myself; I pray that the Court will
be lenient :-)

ThinMan
unSpeaker

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 391 (Robert Sevin)

>The Blueprint for the 'The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too
>Much, Really' (Blue Thing) defines behaviour for a Gadget that
>could potentially break the rules, or could possibly be used to
>break the rules.

  Apparantly Malenkai is never to become Mine Alka... tsk, tsk.  Whatever
shall I do?  I know!  I am creating the following trinkets:

(Hope I have the form right)
#trinket A$1: : The Null Name (this should be a comment)
  with the description, "It appears to be unseeable."  That is, by the
way, indeed the name consisting of a sequence of 0 characters.

#trinket A$1:  : The Space Name
  with the description, "It appears to be seeable but invisible."  Yes,
this name consists of a single space

  I am changing my Ackanomic Name to "  Your_Name_Here  " - yes, indeed,
with two spaces on either end.
  To prevent trouble:

#trinket A$1: Red Barn: Safeguarding our heritage
#transfer Buried   Your_Name_Here  : +1 Red Barn: BwaHaHa.

  While burying the treasure, I seem to have misplaced the map... oh, no,
here it is... oh, wait, it's missing a piece:

Red Barn Treasure:
  The Red Barn Treasure will be found by the first player to publically
announce the (correct) ultimate answer to harf, the universe, and
everything.

  Hum, guess nothing was missing after all...

- -  Your_Name_Here  
  Vote   Your_Name_Here   for Mad Scientist!

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:16:53 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: nomic game (fwd) (CnH)

I read French much better than I write it, but let me commend CnH for
his excellent translation and appropos comments.  Judging by his RL
name, CnH's aptitude for English to French translation comes as no
surprise.  Nevertheless, translation can be a tricky business, and
as far as I can tell, CnH pulled it off in fine fashion.

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #107
*******************************