Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #147
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, June 18 1997       Volume 02 : Number 147

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:37:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Proposal (Niccolo Flychuck) 

>WHEREAS Agora is currently engaged in hostile activites toward Rishonomic,
>in the form an influx of Agoran Players in that Nomic under false
>identities, with the goal of unilaterally alter Rishnomic's Ruleset,
>installing one of their number as Speaker of Rishonomic, and other forms of
>attack, and

Niccolo Flychuck, Ackazens

I hope the above isn't a true image of reality. I also hope that if at any
time, Rishonomic is under threat from another nomic, it will ask Acka to
help. I'd like to think that if Acka needed help, Rishonomic would help us
out. Acka has many reasons to help Rishonomic on a humanitarian level, if
not a cultural one. There are also political reasons, the most important
being the containment of the colonial aspirations of the Agoran Empire.    ; )

Should you ever need anyone to come in, vote a few times and then leave, you
know where to find me. I'm sure there are others here who would do something
on an individual level too.

Calvin "Mercenary" Hobbes

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:54:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TMBSG 

>I believe I meet all the requirements for membership.  I therefore   
>request entrance into TMBSG.
>
>Techno

Creator, over a year ago, of the Brass Monkey and its Banana, Techno is also
the officially "silly" member of the Harf Party. They Might Be Slumbering
Giants is proud to count you as a member.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:05:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Players (breadbox, Mr. Fringe)

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Attention Citizens,
> 
> Your registrar requires your imediate attention.  Please pay heed or face
> immediate extermination.
> 
> It is my duty and privlidge to introduce to you, in no particluar order,
> two new voting players in Ackanomic.  The first one is Michelle Stevens
> <[email-masked]>, who has chosen Sammy as her Ackanomic name.  In
> response to the market research question she writes
> 
> >Someone on the TMBG mailing list mentioned it, and included the web
> >address, and it looked interesting.
> 
> And then there is Gavin Doig <[email-masked]>.  He has chosen, for his
> ackanomic name Rex Mundi.  In response to the Market Research question he
> writes:
> 
> >On the They Might Be Giants mailing list.
> 
> I have been selected as mentor for Sammy.  breadbox has been selected as
> Mentor for Rex Mundi
> 
> Please please please welcome them to this great game ours.

Hi.  Nice to meet you both.  I'm one of the two or three people here who
is NOT a particularly big fan of They Might Be Giants.  I figured I may as
well get that out in the open right from the start. =)

> 
> Mr. Lunatic Fringe.
> 
> Registrar
>     

                         - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:13:59 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: buying pointy ears

#award Rex Mundi: -6 buying pointy ears mutation: 20/06/97

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:51:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Internomic P336 senate vote

The senate has unanimously voted NO on internomic proposal 336.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:55:55 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Silver Shovel 

> I am creating a contract called the Silver Shovel Contract, which reads as
> follows:
>
>   The holder of the Silver Shovel is bound by these restrictions:
>   E may not destroy, or allow the destruction of, the Silver Shovel.
>   E may not destroy, or allow the destruction of, the Silver Shovel Contract.
>   E may not give the Silver Shovel to a player who has not signed the Silver
>   Shovel Contract, or bury it with a map that allows it to be found by a
>player
>   who has not signed the Silver Shovel Contract.
>   E may not hold onto the Silver Shovel for more than one week.

  This has a loophole.  The holder of the Silver Shovel contract can simply
give it to another player and then destroy the shovel.  You should have
said "all signees of this contract".

> I am signing the Silver Shovel contract.
> I am burying 5 PFAntimatter and the Silver Shovel. The following may or
>may not
> have anything to do with the map:
>
> seek nodded me at ill atropal not hi smear tot he a row pint the alters annis
> altar this or neo a fit sheen spills veer rest hi of vie alert urn messy
>
> I hope that's not too hard - but if you don't want to find the Silver Shovel,
> or even if you do, you may want to skip this puzzle.
>
> #trinket Antimatter:Silver Shovel:150
> #transfer Antimatter, buried:Silver Shovel
> #transfer Antimatter, buried:5 PFAntimatter
> -------------------------------
> Antimatter * [email-masked]
> You have the power of negation.

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:00:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:

To those of you who have asked me if I've gotten this or seen
that, I most likely have (except possibly for karma's e-mail,
which is still crashing my mailer (Netscape 2.0, 16bit)) (and
before someone gets the idea of sending me a CFJ with gizz in
it, and then a CFCJ for missing it, don't ;-)).  I will get to 
most of it tonite, I hope.

To be honest, the game has not been that enjoyable for me lately,
and I have been given more responsibilty at work, so I have taken
a couple of days off from Acka.  Remember that one of the 3 premises
of Acka is that it should be playable by someone who checks their
Acka mail once every 3 days (of course, *all* 3 premises are in
doubt sometimes).

I would like to ask Acka a favor, and that is to vote NO, or retract,
proposal 2085.  I know I may not be Mr. Popular right now, but I would
like Acka to look at my long term record as Speaker.  The proposal
refers to it as a Functional office (its actually a Political office),
but I like to think I have made the office much more than that, and with
the exception of the *one* time that I have used that tie-breaking vote,
I have *never* used the office for personal gain.  I agree to some extent
that nothing is wrong with using some offices for personal gain, but do
not consider the Speaker office to be one of them; I have used the office
exclusively for the good of the game, or at least tried (for example, I
could have used the office to become a dictator a couple of weeks ago,
anyone what to figure out how ;) -- I guess that loophole should be
fixed.).

I like to think of the Speaker's office as not a Functional office, but
as a neutral Political office.  The possibility of that tie-breaking vote,
which never comes up, just adds something to the office that cannot be
described.

Malenkai
Speaker
who feels he *has* made something of the office

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:58:59 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: New Players (breadbox, Mr. Fringe) 

> Your registrar requires your imediate attention.  Please pay heed or face
> immediate extermination.

  I thought that was Alfvaen's job?

> >Someone on the TMBG mailing list mentioned it, and included the web
> >address, and it looked interesting.

> >On the They Might Be Giants mailing list.

> Please please please welcome them to this great game ours.

  Welcome welcome welcom you to this great game ours utilizing which has
been inverted grammar.

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:00:43 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Players (breadbox, Mr. Fringe) 

> Oh, yeah, one last thing. *Please* don't step on the steel flea.

  Please take advantage of the Crazy-French Scotsmen rule, too (whichever
it is now).  BwaHaHa!  I shall have my *revenge*...

- -Red Barn

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:03:46 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P2059 accepted (Amung Gods) 

>     Actually, to say that something "is Somewhere Else" is not to
> say that it is *in* your house, (that would be "is in Somewhere Else")
> but rather, that it *is* your house.  Everything not owned by some
> entity is your house.

  Funny, I was just thinking that.  I am renaming my house to "FALSE".  I
now own a number of CFJs. :-)

>     (That would mean all entities are now owned by something.
> Implying recursive ownership, somewhere.  But I think the old meaning
> of the rule sticks despite your house's new name.)

  I don't.  Game custom would be the only argument toward that, and unless
you can find a relevant judgement, that could go either way.

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:08:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 410 Verdict

CFJ 410 has been judged TRUE without comment.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a new Silly Tour Hat
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 410
  Subject: Changing a rule
Initiator: Robert Sevin
    Judge: Techno (selected Jun 16, 1997, 00:18h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Repealing a given rule does not constitute a change to that rule.

Robert Sevin's Reasoning:

Making something cease to exist is not an alteration of that object, IMO.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:12:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt 101

>  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...]

A witchhunt has been called.  The choices are:

BURN THE WITCH!
No, E said the earth is flat

Please include the above subject line in your votes.  Any votes cast
*before* the Hearing was called do not count (I don't believe).

Count Tabula

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:14:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt 102

> > Whilst wand'ring through the dimpled fields
> > Where golfers play their sordid game
> > I spied a tiny match-a-box
> > Which bore the insect Phoebe's name
> > And she (the shame!) ask me for tips
> > On passing time from slip to fall
> > And thus spake Alfonse, clear and true
> > "The Earth is shaped ROUND - like a ball."

> Hrm.  I hope this wasn't supposed to be some wisdom from Phoebe.  If so,
> I'm going to have to call a hearing as to it's veracity.  In either case,
> I am calling for a Witchunt against that heathen Alfonse (or You can call
> me Al, I forget exactly what he goes by now a days).

A witchhunt has been called.  The choices are:

BURN THE WITCH!
No, E said the earth is flat

Please include the above subject line in your votes.  Any votes cast
*before* the Hearing was called do not count (I don't believe).

Count Tabula

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:18:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 408 Verdict

CFJ 408 has been judged TRUE.

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

Call For Judgment 408
  Subject: They Might Be Amung Gods
Initiator: Rule 2059
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jun 15, 1997, 15:07h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

fnord's objection to Malenkai's rank of "GOD" application shall
prevent Malenkai from obtaining that rank.

Rule 2059's Reasoning:

I certainly wondered, along with fnord, what would happen.  Since
no one but a "GOD" may change rule 2059 (unless precedence in the rules
makes that provision false), and no one may become a "GOD" except as
described in rule 2059, here we are.

It does seem like the rules submit the CFJ, and the rule 405 requires
the Speaker to perform tasks that are required, but for which the
rules do not assign a doer.  I do think that rule 2095 is the initiator
though, if that is possible, and the Speaker is Platonically required
to "observe and report" on the change in the game state.  That is always
up for debate too.

As for the actual statement, the rules are "unclear" on that.  The
statement I have "observed" seems reasonable.  This is called creating
game custom on the fly ;-)

Calvin N Hobbes's Reasoning:

R2059 states:

'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.'

It says _nothing_ of the consequences. Is the objection itself sufficient
grounds to deny "GOD" hood? It does _not_ say that there must be an
objection to the eligibility of the player to get "GOD" hood, just that
there is an objection to this player getting the status, which are two
different things. So what would the CFJ be on?

The process in R2059 seems to be in two step. First the application to the
Speaker, where the credentials are sent containing all the appropriate
documentation. We might reasonably assume that the Speaker will need to
check the credentials and requirement given to him for eligibility, as a
prerequisite to making the public announcement. In the second step, that
formalized request can then be objected to by a player. The objection is to
the distributed notice from the speaker, not the requirements -- and how
could the requirements that were sent (as opposed to requirements that
_could_ be sent) be objected to, since they need not be sent publicly, and
the rule actually requires only a private message to the Speaker.

It continues by saying that the matter (ie: the objection to this player
becoming "GOD") must be brought to a CFJ. What is the CFJ on? It would be
there to officially record the objection. The CFJ has no other legal muscle
granted to it by R2059, nothing to rule on but the objection raised. Was an
objection raised? The very lack of detail makes the CFJ little more than an
official rubber stamp to that objection.

There is an existing body of game custom regarding public objections by
players, how they are handled and what their effects are. In a currently
existing rule, R421 (CSRR), simple straight forward public objections are
sufficient grounds to deny something from taking place. R421 makes no
allowance for the appropriateness of the CSRR report, just as R2059 makes no
allowance for the eligibility of the player making the request. If in doubt,
the effects of such objections should be the same.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:31:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal

CFJ 408 has been appealed by Malenkai with the following comments:

CFJ 409 was judged FALSE whilst CFJ 408 was judged TRUE, on basically
the same question arising from rule 2059.  CFJ 409's verdict and
reasoning was publically knowable before CFJ 408 was publically 
accepted by the Judge.

I do not think that there can be much argument that rule 2059's
wording in regulating this matter is open to a wide variety of 
reasonable interpretations; indeed, I find the reasoning of the Judge
of CFJ 408 perfectly *reasonable* given the rule's ambiguous
wording.

However, CFJ 409's reasoning is also *reasonable*, given the openness of
the wording of the rule.  I would argue then, that any sort of 
interpretation on this matter would be arbitrary to some extent, 
regardless of the good faith of the Judges, which I do not doubt in
the least in either case.

CFJ 168 has establised how to handle this case, namely that the first
such verdict delivered holds sway, because it establishes the appropriate
game custom which must be used on the latter cases by rule 215.  Given
that there was no obvious error or debate in the matter of CFJ 409, it
is the game custom that must govern the interpretation of rule 2059,
hence a verdict of FALSE is indicated here.

I point out that the question has been raised that rule 2059 was not
accepted after all.  In that thread, which I have not judged, neither
CFJ 408 nor 409 were ever *filed*, hence you are not reading this.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:33:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: BWG

"Not it!"

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 20:41:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retracting Proposal 2085(acrobot) 

>I would like to ask Acka a favor, and that is to vote NO, or retract,
>proposal 2085.  I know I may not be Mr. Popular right now, but I would
>like Acka to look at my long term record as Speaker.  The proposal
>
>I like to think of the Speaker's office as not a Functional office, but
>as a neutral Political office.  The possibility of that tie-breaking vote,
>which never comes up, just adds something to the office that cannot be
>described.

#retract proposal 2085

Consider it done.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:45:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 412 (Techno)

Techno has been picked.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing many hats
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 412
  Subject: The Godfather Scam saga continues
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Techno (selected Jun 18, 1997, 21:45h EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement:

The Godfather did not properly ack Malenkai's wager on June 7.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

The Godfather said that the odds of a public message being posted by a
player other than Malenkai in the next 7 days was 530 to 1, and that
Malenkai was taking the A$1 side of that bet, thereby betting that a player
other than Malenkai _would_ post a message in the next 7 days.  The
message referenced in the Statement above quoted the header of a Proposal
written by Malenkai himself, _but distributed by Acrobot_, and claimed that
the message satisfied the conditions of the wager.

If, by CFJ 247, the Promoter is not responsible for the content of any
Proposal e distributes, it follows therefrom that, especially in a case
such as this(admittedly not mentioned anywhere in the Rules)where the
Promoter's Proposal-distribution duties are handled automatically, the
Promoter is in fact not truly the poster of any Proposals that e is not
the author of emself.

If this is the case, then the message acked by the Godfather as satisfying
the conditions of the wager was not posted by a player other than Malenkai,
Thus the ack made by the Godfather was invalid, and Malenkai did not
receive the money from his wager at that time.  The conditions of the wager
were amply satisfied in the next several days, but the Godfather was remiss
in acking the wager once its conditions were actually satisfied, so it may
be the case that Malenkai never got the money that was justly owed him by
the Narfalone Family before its untimely demise.  (Depending on when this
Judgement goes through, of course, retroactivity will have rendered the
point moot, so that we will be irrevocably in the thread where the
Godfather's goof went unnoticed until it was too late.)

[And since a CFCJ has already been called against Malenkai on this
matter, even though said CFCJ would not be voided by a TRUE judgement
on this CFJ, I would go so far as to encourage the judge to dally and
thus let retroactivity take its course, if e judge it TRUE.]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:52:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 136 (Vynd)

Vynd has been picked.

#award Robert Sevin, -20 A$

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Men Without Hats logo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 136
  Subject: Illegal Dueling
Initiator: Robert Sevin
    Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 18, 1997, 21:51 EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Robert Sevin has committed a Crime.

Robert Sevin's Reasoning:

At approximately 10:08pm Central time on June 17, I officially announced a
duel between Alfvaen and /dev/joe. At 10:57pm Central time on June 17, I
sent an identical copy of the same message. Since the duel had already been
declared, my second message was a Crime (I was not authorized by Alfvaen to
initiate a second, identical duel).

Suggested penalty:

a DEDUCTION of 1,000,000,000 points
and
a FINE of A$5
and
a SENTENCE of 2 days in the Gaol
and
a TRANSFERENCE of the Adhesive Capital H
and
a PUBLIC APOLOGY of 3 lines

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:06:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal 

>CFJ 409 was judged FALSE whilst CFJ 408 was judged TRUE, on basically
>the same question arising from rule 2059.  CFJ 409's verdict and
>reasoning was publically knowable before CFJ 408 was publically 
>accepted by the Judge.

I was not aware of 409 being returned before I sent mine to you, which, btw
was a significant number of days ago. You are absolutely right that 409
would have set game precendent.

OTOH, now that I have read 409, I have to say I'm very dissapointed by it.
Its judge rules the CFJ false because, and I quote, "I believe that the CFJs
delineated in this Rule have no effect". This has *nothing* to do with with
the statement of the CFJ which deals only with the public objection, not the
CFJ's effects. If any of the two CFJ should be appealed, it should have been
409. [With my luck, I'm saying this and Vynd is probably a Justice... he he
he] Especially by you Malenkai, who have even appealed CFJs whose ruling you
agreed on, but found the reasoning lacking. What's up?

After the detailed research I conducted to find precendents and make a fair
ruling on CFJ408 (where I was leaning to FALSE before doing the research) I
find CFJ409 disappointing to say the least. If it is indeed true that it was
returned so quickly, I will not wonder why that was so.

Perhaps I am the only one who is concerned about the lack of connection
between judge's reasoning and CFJ statement? I'd be more than happy to find
out what I've missed in my reading of 409 and why no one saw it fit to
appeal it.

>I point out that the question has been raised that rule 2059 was not
>accepted after all.  In that thread, which I have not judged, neither
>CFJ 408 nor 409 were ever *filed*, hence you are not reading this.

That would be quite an interesting solution. However, if it does turn out
that 2059 did pass, then I will appeal CFJ409 myself. Not just because I
object to the judge's reasoning (that's not enough) but because it leads to,
imho, a wrong ruling (which has nothing to do with the statement). I would
however appreciate hearing what our Justices and experts on the judicial
system think on this matter.

I offer my deepest apologies to Vynd if I have offended him, that is not my
intention. I only wish to say that imho, my CFJ has been more researched and
point out the differences between CFJs 408 and 409. This is of course, a
completely bias opinion and in no way detracts from the high esteem I hold
Vynd in.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:07:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 412 (Techno)

> Call For Judgment 412
>   Subject: The Godfather Scam saga continues

> Alfvaen's Reasoning:
> 
> The Godfather said that the odds of a public message being posted by a
> player other than Malenkai in the next 7 days was 530 to 1,

This CFJ should be judged FALSE, IMO, and I ask the Judge to consider
the following comments.  *Either* of two following arguments
is sufficient to arrive at a FALSE verdict.

First, the initiator tries to apply the principle of CFJ 247 to this
case, but that comparison is inappropriate.  CFJ 247 pertains to the
message (noun), and its content, meaning that a player sending a 
message to an officer for distribution is considered the author of 
the message, despite the fact that an officer other than the player
distributed it.

The wager announced by the Godfather refers to another player *posting*
(verb) a message.  Mohammed *posted* the message in question, regardless
of the fact that CFJ 247 will rule that it is a *message* by Malenkai,
it is a *post* to the list by Mohammed.  This is an important
distinction. (The fact that it is the bot is not relavent on either
side of the argument).

- --

The second argument comes from the old rule 1060 itself:

> When the issue is resolved, the treasury shall transfer the money to the > winner of the bet. Money in the account of the Narfalone Family
> belongs solely to the Narfalone Family and may not be transfered to any
> player by any means other than a wager.

> The Godfather is the only player permitted to speak or act on behalf
> of the Narfalone Family.  Players that object to his decisions are
> welcome to stop by the Narfalone Cement Factory and try on a pair
> of shoes.

The funny thing about this rule, and this has been known by some
players for awhile, is that the rule never *says* that the Godfather
has to *correctly* adjudicate the bet!  Indeed, the first section
quoted simply refers to the mechanics of the money being transferred on
the "resolution" of the bet, whilst the second section refers to the
arbirtaryness of the Godfather's decisions, with the statement to the
effect that there is little recourse if someone objects to one of them.
The language of these sections clearly leaves open the ability for the
Godfather to adjudicate the bet anyway he pleases.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:10:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 136

goin to gaol in 30 seconds.  sorry about what I didnt get to.

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

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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

This appears to be a first in Ackanomic: the appeal of a CFCJ for the
purpose of altering the punishment rather than the verdict.

First, the Court notes that the CFCJ's suggested and original
punishment was motivated by other actions of the defendant, rather
than the actual Crime. This has its precedents, and this Court does
not wish to appear to pass judgement on such practices, favorable or
otherwise. Still, the Supreme Court itself must adhere to a more
rigorous standard of behavior, if it is to adequately perform the
service that was intended by its founders. In the case of a Criminal
Judgement, that means that the punishment must fit the crime that the
Court was asked to consider. In particular, using Criminal proceedings
to serve as redress for the essentially unrelated grievances suffered
by an independent Organization is not a valid function of the Supreme
Court, and to do otherwise would be a disservice to the citizenship of
Ackanomic.

Supreme Court's Penalty:

The Court finds that a penalty of one day in Gaol to be appropriate.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:30:56 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal

> I was not aware of 409 being returned before I sent mine to you, which, btw
> was a significant number of days ago. You are absolutely right that 409
> would have set game precendent.

409's verdict was posted 6/15, 22:27.  You publically *accepted* 408
on 6/15, 22:53, and delivered your verdict to me 6/16, 00:12.  I did not
do *any* acka work from midnight 6/16. but even if I had, it would have
had no effect.  It was still under the 3 day time limit, which must 
be respected, due to the fact that there can be alot of non-acka RL
pressures from time to time.  At least I was not a month late; I won't
mention any names :)

> Especially by you Malenkai, who have even appealed CFJs whose ruling you
> agreed on, but found the reasoning lacking. What's up?

Well, that's not entirely true, except for the case of the CFCJ, when
the *penalty* I disagreed with.  I have appealed CFJs where I found the
reasoning lacking, but I was not *sure* of the proper verdict.  There is
a difference.  I have also appealed CFJs where the case was fascinating
to me, and was willing to spend 25 points to kick it around more.  That
may be what's up, but I do not find this case particularily fascinating,
but found the verdict incorrect, for the reasons given.

Another argument for FALSE, which I did not write due to time pressures,
is that the game state can only be changed as described in the rules,
and that the rule in question does not describe how the objection, once
raised, is to change the game state.  I figured the Justices would find
that one; the CFJ 168 argument interests me much more, and that is the
real reason for the appeal (not to mention that the title GOD sounds
cool :)).

- ------

In other notes, I am not allowed to change the game state for the next
24 hours, and am allowed only 2 public messages after this one, so I
apologize to anyone who's stuff I did not get to.

Malenkai
in Gaol

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:34:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 412 (Techno)

> This CFJ should be judged FALSE, IMO, and I ask the Judge to consider
> the following comments.  *Either* of two following arguments
> is sufficient to arrive at a FALSE verdict.

> First, the initiator tries to apply the principle of CFJ 247 to this
> case, but that comparison is inappropriate.  CFJ 247 pertains to the
> message (noun), and its content, meaning that a player sending a 
> message to an officer for distribution is considered the author of 
> the message, despite the fact that an officer other than the player
> distributed it.

This probably wouldn't have occurred to me if you hadn't mentioned that in
regard to my invalid Witchhunt call on Mohammed on acka-research...:-)
I have a bad habit of not researching earlier CFJs when submitting or
judging my own, though if CnH's worthy indexing project goes through, that
might change.

> The wager announced by the Godfather refers to another player *posting*
> (verb) a message.  Mohammed *posted* the message in question, regardless
> of the fact that CFJ 247 will rule that it is a *message* by Malenkai,
> it is a *post* to the list by Mohammed.  This is an important
> distinction. (The fact that it is the bot is not relavent on either
> side of the argument).

Indeed.  Acrobot has no legal status whatsoever(I was toying with the idea
of naming my Monster that, and probably would have had I remembered in
time).  I was wondering if the kind of distinction you mention here would
be in effect or not, and that's one reason I submitted the CFJ.

> The funny thing about this rule, and this has been known by some
> players for awhile, is that the rule never *says* that the Godfather
> has to *correctly* adjudicate the bet!  Indeed, the first section
> quoted simply refers to the mechanics of the money being transferred on
> the "resolution" of the bet, whilst the second section refers to the
> arbirtaryness of the Godfather's decisions, with the statement to the
> effect that there is little recourse if someone objects to one of them.
> The language of these sections clearly leaves open the ability for the
> Godfather to adjudicate the bet anyway he pleases.

So the Godfather could ack a bet that the Universe ended, and then
proceed to make his own call on whether it did or not?  Interesting.

Another principle I wanted to test was whether or not, if you were
awarded money at a time when the award was invalid, if that money would
still be awarded to you if the award's conditions became true later,
_and_ you had to point out the award.  Would the earlier case of
pointing out that the award was due you carry over?  If all else fails, I'm
curious about this issue.  Maybe I should try to come up with a better
example for it, if there is one under the current ruleset.  (Hmmm...the
Trombone is good...)  But that can wait until you're out of Gaol.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Sinead O'Connor:I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got
Current Book--Jo Clayton:The Snares of Ibex
Ignore alien orders.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:36:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 136

> Supreme Court's Penalty:
> 
> The Court finds that a penalty of one day in Gaol to be appropriate.

I thank the Court for their consideration on this matter.  (Now if we could
just figure out which thread we're in...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Sinead O'Connor:I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got
Current Book--Jo Clayton:The Snares of Ibex
By the Holy Claws of Klortho the Magnificent, this IS a fine morning!

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #147
*******************************