Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #148
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, June 19 1997        Volume 02 : Number 148

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:25:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[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?

<blink>  I'm the Registrar?  Or I'm the official Heed-Payer and Immediate 
Exterminator?

> > 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.

Try is no there, do only.
OR
Different all twisty a of in maze are you, passages little.

- --
- --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
What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:46:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 136 (Vynd)

I accept judgement.

                           - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Thierry Joffrain wrote:

> >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?

In my defense, I was more or less eqauting the CFJ with the public
objection.  This was probably not the best decision on my part, but (in my
shoes, at least) not too suprising given rather clear conflicts between
what the rule seems to want to accomplish, and what a literal
interpretation of it actually does.  I got a little confused.  As far as
Malenkai's appealing your CFJ and not mine is concerned, I was somewhat
suprised as well, but I thought his explanation more than adequate.

> 
> 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 think perhaps I wasn't the only one to get a little tied up by Rule
2059, and that is probably why my judgement was not appealed.  It's also
quite possible that, regardless of my reasoning, most people thought I was
right, or didn't care one way or another.

Now, I've taken a look at Rule 421, which I admit I never even thought of
doing.  After looking at it, however, I don't see any particular reason
why I should have.  It does indeed describe a way in which public
objections can prevent something from occuring.  The event in question is
a CSR, however, which fnord's objection was not.  I think you claim that
this set of rules for dealing with CSRs set precedence for any objection
to a public action.  I don't really see why.  They're quite specific,
addressing objections to CSRs and only CSRs.  If I follow your arguement,
you are claiming that this same method can be used to halt any public
action.  If this is true... well, lets just say that I hope it isn't.
There are an awful lot of public actions that would be pretty easy to stop
then, wouldn't there.  Heck, it would just take me and one other guy to
stop you from having accepted judgement on this CFJ in the first place.
Finally, there is the fact that the CSSR Rule calls for two public
objections, not just the one that fnord made.  Now, I don't dispute that
you spent more time on this than I did, and it is very possible that I
have missed something, or misunderstood something, here.  But if my grasp
of your arguement *is* correct, then I am not sure if it is any more
applicable than mine.

 > 
> >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
> 
> 

                              - Vynd (not a Justice)

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > 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 :)).

The fact that the Rules do not state how the objection can change the game
state was what drove me to the FALSE verdict.  Unfortunately, as CnH has
posinted out, I did a piss poor job of describing this in my reasoning.

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal 

>The fact that the Rules do not state how the objection can change the game
>state was what drove me to the FALSE verdict.

Hmm. That's a pretty interesting idea. I would note however, that the game
state hasn't yet changed when an objection is made (that happens later in
the rule). The game state is changed only when the person gets the title,
and that hasn't happened _yet_. The objection, as in R421, stops it from
proceeding and altering the game state. Of course, we could argue about that
I guess.

And I agree with Vynd completely, the R421 precedent is vague, that's why it
wasn't my only reason. But in its defense, it doesn't say that any objection
can stop anything. There is a precedent however, to interpret rules that say
"player(s) may object publicly" to mean that it stops something from
happening. But just actions of rules that allow those public objections.

Calvin N Hobbes
feeling guilty at keeping people from their apotheosis

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #148
*******************************