Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #140
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Sunday, June 15 1997         Volume 02 : Number 140

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 01:19:20 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 407 (Bascule)

> Call For Judgment 407
> Subject: Continuous Creation
> Initiator: Robert Sevin

> Bascule has been picked.

I accept.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:35:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt

Jun 15 20:34 EDT: -10 Mr. Lunatic Fringe : BURN THE WITCH!

BURN
- ----
Red Barn
Alfvaen
Vynd
Evil Ballot Stuffer
Mr. Lunatic Fringe
mr cwm

The other choice
- ----------------
breadbox
ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:47:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 407 Verdict

CFJ 407 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing snowgod's lost hat
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 407
  Subject: Continuous Creation
Initiator: Robert Sevin
    Judge: Bascule (selected Jun 14, 1997, 01:38h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Rule 714 (Cow Town Hotel) continually creates the Hotel named Cow Town.

Robert Sevin's Reasoning:

Rule 714 says "This rule establishes a Hotel named Cow Town.". It
does not say that it establishes the hotel only when the rule is
created, therefore I conclude that this statement must always be in
effect, and therefore it is continuously establishing the Cow Town
Hotel. On the other hand, two locations can't have the same name, so
this rule might be in conflict with other rules.

Bascule's Reasoning:

Rule 714's _intent_ is clear; the phrase "This rule establishes a
Hotel named Cow Town" was intended to create just one location. Given
that the initiator's literal reading of this statement could lead to
the counter-intuitive conclusion that it creates an infinite number
of hotels that should be renamed according to rule 348, this
statement could be construed as unclear. Through the game custom
that this rule has created only one location, and that it does not
make sense to create something that already exists, I judge false.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2060 rejected (Frivolous E-mail)

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2060
> Frivolous E-mail
> CV1701
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  19 / 21 = 90.476190%
> Yes:  1    No:  16     Present:  2   ...Proposal rejected.
> 
> 
> YES votes:
> 	CV1701

Wow.  I am creating a trinket called "One unpopular proposal," with a
value of A$5.  It looks just like Proposal 2060 Frivolous E-mail, except
that it has a big red REJECTED stamped on the front of it.

#trinket Vynd : One unpopular proposal : A$5 : Wow

I am offering One unpopular proposal to CV1701, as a consolation.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2059 accepted (Amung Gods)

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2059
> Amung Gods
> CV1701
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  20 / 21 = 95.238095%
> Yes:  13    No:  8     Present:  0   ...Proposal accepted.
> 
> 
> Text of accepted proposal:
> 
> Proposal 2059
> Amung Gods
> CV1701
> Distributed at 03:00:20 on Sunday, 8 June 1997

OK, I admit it, the first thing I did when I saw this proposal passed was
drop dead in suprise.  I was only mostly dead, thought, as it turned out,
and I've now had a chance to review the rule.  I don't think it's really
all that bad, just a few oddities that aren't that suprising considering
that this was one of CV1701's first proposals.  A few simple ammendments,
which I may well submit after I finish writting this, would patch it up
nicely.

> 
> 
> Title: Amung Gods
> Body:   
>        1) A "GOD"  has the power to change universal constants and other
> fudimental aspects of the universe.
> 
>        2) A person has "GOD" status when they have been deemed enlightened,
> hold a  public office, have donated to any organization in Ackanomic and must
> have created at least one trinket or gaget. They must be a voting player, who
> has lost no CFJs in the current cycle.

OK, I don't know how one "loses" a CFJ.  If CV1701 means had a CFJ that
one called ruled FALSE, then I think that would be reasonable.  I don't
know if that's realy what he had in mind though.

> 
>        3) To become a "GOD"  a player must meet the requirements above and be
> abel to provide documentation of the trinket or gadget, that they were deemed
> enlightened, and that they hold a public office. They must then submit a
> statement, along with the approiate documentation, to the speaker requesting
> the rank of "GOD". The speaker then must destribute a notice of this. If
> anyone has an objection to this player becoming a "GOD" they may publicly say
> so and the matter will be brought to a CFJ. All objections must be processed
> with in 5 days of the decloration of "GOD" request. If they are not,  all are
> rendered null and void.

This could probably be folded into the previous paragraph, a lot of it is
just verifying that the conditions described in 2 have been met.  the
whole buisness about objections being brought to a CFJ should probably go
though.  I think the intent here is simply to allow people to challenge
someone's eligibility as a "GOD" via a CFJ.  This is all provided for by
the rules on CFJs, however, and need not be stated here.  This is
particularly true since, as has already been pointed out, the wording in
this rule is such that exactly who is calling the CFJ is rather hard to
determine.  The 5 day deadline and null and void bit are also rather
ambiguous, what does "processed" mean here, and what exactly is annulled?

> 
>        4) When someone passes the scrutiny described above they are given
> "GOD" status with all the rights and privliges there of.
> 
>        5) "GOD" hood lasts for the duration of the current cycle.
> 
>        6) A "GOD" has the ablilty to change a universal constant. If a GOD
> submits a proposal  they have the advantage of only needing 3/8 of the vote
> to pass a proposal as opposed to the standard 1/2.

Well, Universal Constants didn't pass, so references to them should
probably be removed.  The standard for a proposal passing is actually
3/5th, I thought.  Unfortunately for "GOD"s, there's nothing in this
rule that gives it precedence over the normal voting rules, so I don't
think this part actually goes into effect. =)

> 
>        7) "GOD" Status wears off if a person passes 2 proposals with only 3/8
> as defined in section 6.
> 
>        8) A person cannot become a God twice in one cycle.
> 
>        9) Only a "GOD" Can change this rule.

Oops.  Guess I won't be submitting an ammendment soon after all.  Well,
perhaps Malenkai or /dev/joe can take a whack at it.  All in all, I must
say that seeing this proposal pass is the biggest shock I've had since I
discovered the Earth was round.  Still, it should be fun, once it gets
cleaned up a little bit.

> 
>        10) Title of Constant: "GOD"
>            Definition: one controlling a particular aspect of part of
> reality.
>            Resource: Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary
> 

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:28:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2059 accepted (Amung Gods)

> OK, I don't know how one "loses" a CFJ.  If CV1701 means had a CFJ that
> one called ruled FALSE, then I think that would be reasonable.  I don't
> know if that's realy what he had in mind though.

I think it has to be construed literally, ie, you lost the e-mail
or the CotC lost it somehow (like Mohammed lost CFJ 184, my first
paradox win ;)).  IAC, I do not think the FALSE criteria is reasonable,
I often word my CFJs expecting the FALSE verdict.

Malenkai
wondering who has submitted the most CFJs

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:32:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: AckaA: Godliness

> I am one of two (?) players in Ackanomic who can never become a god :)
> 
> >2) A person has "GOD" status when they have been deemed *enlightened*,
> >hold a public office, have donated to any organization in Ackanomic and
> >must have created at least one trinket or gaget. They must be a voting
> >player, who has lost no CFJs in the current cycle.
> 
> I think one of our god's neds to hange this little section :)

Well, if the "Ackanomicon" proposal passes, that will add another means of
becoming Enlightened, however difficult...you know, a 1 in 46 chance that
you can attempt once per month...

However, it might also be possible to extend Enlightenment to the
multiply-burned.  That exclusion seems, now that I think about it, to be
somewhat arbitrary.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In The Other Room--Patrick Swayze:She's Like The Wind
Current Book--Sean Stewart:Clouds End
Jesus saves and takes half damage.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 02:35:19 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  I wanna do it! I got there first!

Vynd wrote:

> OK, I admit it, the first thing I did when I saw this proposal passed was
> drop dead in suprise.  

You and me both :-)

[snip of comments on the rule] 

>  All in all, I must say that seeing this proposal pass is the
> biggest shock I've had since I discovered the Earth was round.

Yaay! I call for a Witchhunt on Vynd. I always knew he was a witch. 
[Although this is probably deliberate, to get himself Enlightened...]

Bascule
Who has never been burned, but came close a couple of times

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:49:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2059 accepted (Amung Gods)

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > OK, I don't know how one "loses" a CFJ.  If CV1701 means had a CFJ that
> > one called ruled FALSE, then I think that would be reasonable.  I don't
> > know if that's realy what he had in mind though.
> 
> I think it has to be construed literally, ie, you lost the e-mail
> or the CotC lost it somehow (like Mohammed lost CFJ 184, my first
> paradox win ;)).  IAC, I do not think the FALSE criteria is reasonable,
> I often word my CFJs expecting the FALSE verdict.
> 
> Malenkai
> wondering who has submitted the most CFJs
> 

Oh, I agree completely that the literal meain of this would have to be
that the CFJ was somehow misplaced (as to how a CFJ can be misplaced,
since it doesn't even exist until it has been posted publicly, I have no
idea).  But I think the intent of the rule was that the player must be
infalible, god-like, and this would imply the no FALSE ruling on their
CFJs interpretation I put forward before, as what the Rule intended by
lost.  I concur that game custom does not consider a CFJ that has been
ruled FALSE to necessarily be a loss on the part of the player who
submited it, though.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 409 (Vynd)

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Vynd has been picked.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgment 409
>   Subject: They Might Be Amung Gods II
> Initiator: Rule 2059
>     Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 15, 1997, 18:04h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Mr. Lunatic Fringe's objection to /dev/joe's rank of "GOD" application
> shall prevent /dev/joe from obtaining that rank.
> 
> Rule 2059's Reasoning:
> 
> See CFJ 408.  No one came up with a better idea, IMHO :)
> 

I accept judgement.

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:54:43 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: P2108

I am obliged to point out that P2108 is invalid by the "Bribery" rule,
because its effects depend on the way a certain player, fnord, votes.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Lords of The New Church:Method To Our Madness
Current Book--Sean Stewart:Clouds End
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:11:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 135 Verdict

CFCJ 135 has been judged TRUE.  A fine of A$1060 will be imposed
after a 3 day grace period.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing snowgod's lost silly tour hat
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 135
  Subject: Family Business
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Bascule (selected Jun 07, 1997, 01:50 EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Malenkai has committed a Crime.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Malenkai posted the following public message:

> In my various capacities as both a player and the Godfather, the
> following actions are occurring in the order specified:
>
> 1) As Godfather, I am publishing the following odds:
>
> The odds of a public message being posted by a player other than
> Malenkai in the next 7 days are 530 to 1.
>
> 2) The Godfather is taking bets on this event, with a maximum
> bet of A$1.
>
> 3) I, Malenkai, am taking the A$1 side of this bet, wagering A$1.
>
> 4) The Godfather acks this bet

In it, he explicitly, under his own name, makes a bet with the Narfalone
Family.  I now refer you to relevant sections of Rule 1060, "Organized
Crime".

Rule 1060, "Organized Crime"

(relevant sections)

2. Publicly admitting to belonging to the Narfalone Family is a Crime,
punishable by no more than 5 days in jail.

7. [excerpt] Any member of the Narfalone Family may bet by publicly stating
which event they are wagering on and the $A they are wagering.

11. [excerpt] ...any Narfalone Family business that requires a public
message should be done using the player's Narfalone Family name.
Otherwise, the public message is tantamount to an admission of membership,
which is still a Crime.

Clearly, by making a bet, which is Narfalone Family business that requires
a public message, without using his Narfalone Family name("The Godfather"),
Malenkai has admitted to being a member of the Narfalone Family.

Suggested Penalty:

Either a FINE of A$530(the amount Malenkai attempted to scam from the
Narfalone Family)

or a SENTENCE of 5 days(the maximum).

Judge's Comments:

I have been impressed throughout this trial with the honesty,
integrity and accuracy of the witness Alfvaen. I find him to be a
reliable witness, and no evidence has been produced to challenge his
version of events.

I find that Counsel for the Prosecution, Alfvaen, has constructed a
solid case for a verdict of GUILTY, er TRUE. The defendent hatched a
wicked plot to defraud Organized Crime out of A$530. He then
executed his best friend, er plan, with ruthless disregard for his
fellow criminals.

Malenkai, aka the Godfather, your knowledge of the law and ability to
escape through the tiniest loophole makes you Ackanomic's most
dangerous criminal. I feel I have no option but to impose a stiff
penalty, and I can only hope that this encourages you to return to
your previous law-abiding ways. The penalty shall be a FINE of
A$1060.

Actual Penalty:

FINE of A$1060

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:12:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 135 Appeal (SC)

Malenkai has appealed CFCJ 135 to the Supreme Court.

Malenkai's Appeal Reasoning:

I am appealing the penalty, not the verdict, although, due to the
nit-picking nature of the crime in question, the Court is free to
find INVALID as was done on a similar nit-picking case in CFJ 281.

First of all, one nit-picking crime is being used to "punish" a
scam that was completely legal, and performed as described in the
rules.  I think we set a bad precedent to use pedantic crimes to
punish rule-following behaviour.  Lets face it, everyone breaks the
rules in minor ways all the time.  We don't want to, but it happens.
Scams are good for Acka -- they encourage well-written rules.  This
CFCJ and penalty are not the solution to encourage well-written
rules.  I could argue that Acka's ruleset is *healthier* due to scamming;
do not discourage it.

Secondly, lets look at my financial history.  Probably over A$1000 
donated to Acka in the form of Treasure hunts, to provide incentive to
find alternate winning conditions, develop and participate in sub-games,
and general harf, including the RoJ treasure worth over A$600 and a 
possible win for everyone but myself.  When I did those things, why 
wasn't anyone calling a CFJ demanding that large sums of money be
*given* to me.  'Oh my god, Malenkai just created a Treasure worth A$700,
lets throw money *at* him'.  Instead, something a bit more than a typo,
and I get hit with a fine of more than most players even start with,
and considerably more than I have.  If this unjust, unfair, insultingly
ridiculous penalty sticks, I will no longer be able to do that part of
the game for Acka.  What does Acka think I'm gonna do with the scammed
money anyway?

Finally, its been said publically that the CFCJ was in questionable
taste.  I'm not gonna argue that point here, but I was suprised when
it was not retracted.  A similar case occured with me on CFCJ 102
(athough the scam in question broke the rules, unlike this one), and 
I had the grace to retract the CFCJ, learning the philosophy of the
first point.  Perhaps Acka can do the same here.

I am already going lose 25 points on the frivilous appeal (much more
than the standard penalties for real crimes), I ask the Court for
a prompt verdict and a DEDUCTION of 0 points.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:13:31 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Treasures Found

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC79D9.5F336880
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Sunday, June 15, 1997 6:08 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: Acka: Treasures Found

> Malenkai I would like to know how one goes about finding treasure?

Treasure is described by rule 1217.  You have to meet the conditions
described in the map created by the person who created in the treasure.
As these treasures are part of a scam, they are bad examples.  There
is a found treasure page at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackabta.htm
that has better examples.

BTW, your mailer is adding some sort of gizz to your mail that is
weirding out (my admittedly ancient) mail client.

Malenkai

Can u describe the gizz ? maybe I can do something about it. 
Wow I actually sensed some sort of emotion from u in this message, very unvulcanlike.

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC79D9.5F336880
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC79D9.5F336880--

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:23:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasures Found

> Can u describe the gizz ? maybe I can do something about it.
> Wow I actually sensed some sort of emotion from u in this message,
> very unvulcanlike.

Well no, because my mailer GPFs when replying to your messages, and
does not display the gizz.  Netscape, when viewing your mail in the
"in" folder, claims it is type application/ms-tnef with base64 encoding,
and asks me if I want to download it, which I do not wish to.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:27:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 409 Verdict

CFJ 409 has been judged FALSE, providing game custom for CFJ 408.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearuing a silly tour toupee
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 409
  Subject: They Might Be Amung Gods II
Initiator: Rule 2059
    Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 15, 1997, 18:04h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Mr. Lunatic Fringe's objection to /dev/joe's rank of "GOD" application
shall prevent /dev/joe from obtaining that rank.

Rule 2059's Reasoning:

See CFJ 408.  No one came up with a better idea, IMHO :)

Vynd's reasoning:

The Amung Gods rule, while it provides for this CFJ to be called if a
player objects to a claim to godliness, does not actualy say that such an
objection can prevent a player from recieving the status of "GOD."  The
relevant sections of the rule are quoted below:

>
>        2) A person has "GOD" status when they have been deemed enlightened,
> hold a  public office, have donated to any organization in Ackanomic and must
> have created at least one trinket or gaget. They must be a voting player, who
> has lost no CFJs in the current cycle.
>
>        3) To become a "GOD"  a player must meet the requirements above and be
> abel to provide documentation of the trinket or gadget, that they were deemed
> enlightened, and that they hold a public office. They must then submit a
> statement, along with the approiate documentation, to the speaker requesting
> the rank of "GOD". The speaker then must destribute a notice of this. If
> anyone has an objection to this player becoming a "GOD" they may publicly say
> so and the matter will be brought to a CFJ. All objections must be processed
> with in 5 days of the decloration of "GOD" request. If they are not,  all are
> rendered null and void.
>
>        4) When someone passes the scrutiny described above they are given
> "GOD" status with all the rights and privliges there of.

These are all the restrictions on how a player may become a "GOD."  There
is an additional restriction that can cause a player to lose their status
of "GOD," but clearly that doesn't come into play here.

As you can see in the second paragraph quoted above, the rule provides for
CFJs such as this one, to be called upon objection to a player recieving
the status of "GOD."  Nowhere does it say what effects such a CFJ would
have, whether it is judged TRUE or FALSE.  Thus, I believe that the CFJs
delineated in this Rule have no effect, and cannot prevent a player from
gaining godhood.  Hence, a FALSE verdict.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:41:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: AckaA: Godliness 

>I am one of two (?) players in Ackanomic who can never become a god :)

I wonder who the second person is...

>I think one of our god's neds to hange this little section :)

Especially considering we both voted for the rule! Let no one say we won't
put fun and harf before our own good.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:46:33 -0700
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Karma's Gizz

On Sun, Jun 15, 1997 at 10:23:21PM -0400, Malenkai wrote:
> > Can u describe the gizz ? maybe I can do something about it.
> 
> Well no, because my mailer GPFs when replying to your messages, and
> does not display the gizz.  Netscape, when viewing your mail in the
> "in" folder, claims it is type application/ms-tnef with base64 encoding,
> and asks me if I want to download it, which I do not wish to.

Nor do any of the rest of us.  Apparently, what is occurring is
Karma is using Exchange or Outlook, the latest mail engine from 
Microsquish, which attaches that stuff to the end of formatted mail.

In order to not have that stuff sent out, Karma, you need to make
sure you tell your mail program to send out unformatted mail.

fnord

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:53:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 406 (CnH) 

>CFJ 406 has been reassigned to CnH.

I accept.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:05:05 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: proto-RFC on Alignments 

>How easy would it be for a player to change eir alignment?  If you could
>change your alignment before and after using the Gadget, that would have no
>effect.  Some minimum time between alignment changes would be in order.
>Also, if multiple alignments are allowed, then some alignments should be
>immutable--"Silly" players should have the "Weird" alignment, Senators and
>the President would have "Government"; Religions could specify mandatory or
>forbidden alignments for their members or priests; etc.

In INWO (the new Illuminati card game), one's alignment is changed by a
player playing a "Plot" card. Hmm...

Plot Card = Otzma Card?

We could EASILY work the Otzma cards into this system. How about players'
alignments affecting their party chess pieces?

Al

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:04:04 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 135 Appeal (SC)

Malenkai wrote:
> I am appealing the penalty, not the verdict, although, due to the
> nit-picking nature of the crime in question, the Court is free to
> find INVALID as was done on a similar nit-picking case in CFJ 281.

I disagree that it was a nit-picking crime. The old rule was quite 
clear on the matter.

> If this unjust, unfair, insultingly ridiculous penalty sticks

I feel offended by this. Malenkai scammed A$530 and committed a crime 
in the process. The fine removes that money and fines him an 
equivalent amount. I tried to make the penalty fit the crime. I 
certainly do not feel it was 'insultingly ridiculous'.

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 04:34:06 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I am going on vacation, expected duration whatever the maximum is.

I apologise to Malenkai for causing offence with the verdict of CFCJ 
135. I imagine his appeal will be successful. I was trying to have 
some fun. He tried to scam a lot of money, and the verdict would have 
removed an equal amount instead. 

Ackanomic has become too serious for me. The stick Malenkai got for
his win, and now this message from him, make me wonder whether this
is the place for me, and I am going on vacation to think about it. 
For me, Acka is a lighthearted game, with the exceptional bonus of 
having some hard thinking in there too. Robert Sevin's recent spate 
of proposals have brought home to me how Acka used to be like when I 
joined. I still enjoy being here, but nowadays more because I have 
grown to like the people here a great deal, than for the game itself. 
But when something like this happens, you get to thinking about the 
whole deal, and funnily enough I imagine my verdict had exactly the 
same effect on Malenkai as his response has had on me.

I apologise again for causing offence. 

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:33:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2115

Alfvaen posted on acka-research:

> > Proposal 2115
> > I Knew The ***** Was ***** All The Time
> 
> I call for a Witchhunt on Mohammed, our Promoter, for daring to distribute
> such a heretical proposal.

This doesn't happen.  First of all, it was called on acka-research,
and therefore is most likely not a valid action.  More importantly,
though, CFJ 247 established that the author of a proposal was 
responsible for any allegedly heretical content.  Also, CFCJ 127 allows
that the call of witchhunt is not entirely a subjective matter,
despite the rather loose wording of the rule.

On another note, witchhunts tend to occur in batches.  For this
reason, I will be buffering them, so don't be alarmed if it takes a
couple of days for it to show up.

Count Tabula

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:41:51 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2059 accepted (Amung Gods)

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> OK, I don't know how one "loses" a CFJ.  If CV1701 means had a CFJ that

The CFJ goes Somewhere Else. Or to the treasury. :)

**two-star

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:48:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation 

>Ackanomic has become too serious for me.

Aye aye. I'll agree to that. It's a game, but it's sometimes played as
though it weren't. I'll count myself among the guilty, those who sometimes
take things too seriously. A game is a game is a game. And should remain
just that.

Bascule, I will count each day to your return.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2059 accepted (Amung Gods)

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, **Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > OK, I don't know how one "loses" a CFJ.  If CV1701 means had a CFJ that
> 
> The CFJ goes Somewhere Else. Or to the treasury. :)

If it goes to Somewhere Else, then I should ahve no trouble finding it.  I
have lots of stuff in my house now, but no CFJs so far as I know, so it
should stand out pretty well...

> 
> **two-star
> 

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:02:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

> I apologise to Malenkai for causing offence with the verdict of CFCJ
> 135.

It caused *no* offense to me.  I wish people would stop playing 
mind-reader and assume everything offends me.

> He tried to scam a lot of money, and the verdict would have
> removed an equal amount instead.

I believe I provided reasonable rationale for my appeal.  It may have
been more productive for you to address *all* the points I made in
the appeal, rather than just the ones you chose to respond to.  I have
also stated that the amount of money in question is *substantially*
less than what I have given to acka in terms of gratis treasure hunts,
and a victory condition that I cannot obtain.

> and now this message from him,

In all seriousness, if you hand down a penalty 50 times larger than
anything handed down before, completely out of the bounds of what 
our custom and culture is used to, you have to realistically be 
prepared for any sort of response.  This penalty would, if enforced,
take away the most enjoyable part of the game for me, which is 
burying treasures.  I explained that *clearly* in my appeal.  Games
are meant to be fun.  You may have had fun taking that away from me,
but I have a moral duty to myself to attempt to protect the part of
the game that is the most fun to me.

> But when something like this happens, you get to thinking about the
> whole deal, and funnily enough I imagine my verdict had exactly the
> same effect on Malenkai as his response has had on me.

Not at all.  My first response was to spend the weekend looking for
a loophole that would get me out of it.  My next response was to appeal
it, with the reasonable rationale that I provided. 

As Niccolo Flychuck said after my observation, don't worry what others
think, play your game.  I am playing my game.  I found the penalty
unreasonable and inappropriate, for the reasons given, and I am taking
a game action to change that.  Please don't be offended; quite frankly
I'm tired of every action of mine offending someone.  When I came back,
I decided that I am not gonna let *anything* offend me.  I have not,
despite allegations to the contrary.  If you're gonna dish out A$1060
penalties for what is little more than a typo, please be prepared for
the sort of response that was delivered.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:22:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 406 Verdict

CFJ 406 has been judged FALSE.

#transfer Bascule,mr cwm : Chartreuse Goose

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a silly stetson tour hat
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 406
  Subject: CFJ 394 revisited
Initiator: mr cwm
    Judge: Lunatic Fringe (declined)
2nd Judge: Vynd (declined)
3rd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jun 14, 1997, 11:12h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

A judge returning a verdict of TRUE on a CFCJ with the statement "mr cwm
has broken the rules" is a game action appearing equally legal and
illegal.

mr cwm's Reasoning:

This is the same statement as CFJ 394, the Judge's reasoning in which,
although setting a precedent for an extremely useful category of
statements, namely, the indeterminate, I find rather unsatisfying in that
it does not address the problem at hand.

Consider that reasoning:  it declares the CFJ FALSE because the statement
published in is is not untrue, but is, rather, indeterminate.  But what
happens if we accept that the statement is indeterminate?  Why, it must be
untrue, since it claims to be untrue, but we have just accepted it as
indeterminate.  So if it is indeterminate, it must be untrue, and by the
same reasoning presented in the initiator's reasoning of that CFJ, if it
is untrue it must be true, etc.

Really, though, I didn't get to know the Chartreuse Goose very well before
it left for Bascule's.  I've got a nice room prepared for it, now.

"This is a Paradox Win CFJ"

Calvin N Hobbes Reasoning:

CFCJs, by R710 (Criminal Justice), say that:

"Except as detailed in this rule, it shall be like the Call for Judgement in
all ways, including how it is submitted, how judges are selected, how it is
appealed, etc."

Which must be taken to mean that CFCJ have the same options of judgements
than CFJs, since R710 does no redefine the legal rulings. Hence for a CFCJ,
by R214 (Possible Judgements), the legal rulings are TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDED
and INVALID.

The paradox that mr cwm so skillfully outlines in CFJ394, and to which he
refers the judge of this one, is that of a criminal action paradox. As he
proposes in CFJ394, the sequence of actions that took place lead to a
paradox. It is neither TRUE nor FALSE that the newspaper's owner has
committed a crime. Thus any CFCJ which would put presented on the grounds
outlined in CFJ394 would have to be ruled UNDECIDED or INVALID. Excluding
the INVALID possiblity (which is arguably a trivial one), the judge must
return a ruling of UNDECIDED on such paradox.

Hence, a ruling of TRUE in the CFCJ mentioned in the statement of this CFJ,
would be an incorrect ruling. It would not be both legal and illegal. This
means that the statement of this CFJ is false.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #140
*******************************