Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #172
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, July 1 1997         Volume 02 : Number 172

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 21:54:52 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: (None Yet)

I would like to request membership in (none yet). It seems a shame that 
such a historicly important party should fall below the minimum required 
for a unity vote. This sentence demonstrates my support for 
self-referential rules and other structures.

**two-star

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:52:58 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG 

>
>
>Really? Well, it *is* a common idiom, though perhaps not as common as
>it once was.
>
>breadbox

It might be one of those idioms that's more common on the east coast than
the west.  I have spent time in every state west of Wisconsin, but none
east.  That's the only thing I can figure.  I've heard ball of wax and
barrel of monkeys and all sort of other fun stuff, but never, ever, a
kettle of fish.

The image still makes me chuckle.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
Maybe it's because alaskans dont put fish in a kettle, but instead on a
barbecue or in the oven? :)

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 01:43:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Default Votes 

>Active players who did not vote:
>	breadbox
>	Atilla the Pun
>	You can call me Al
>	Calvin N Hobbes
>	CarsesraC
>	Antimatter

I recommend that all of these players that are not casting votes ought to
set their default votes, most likely to PRESENT. To set your default vote,
all you need to do is send a message to Mohammed and let him know what you
want your default vote to be. In fact, everyone probably ought to set their
default vote to PRESENT, in case they forget to case a vote on a proposal. 

Just wanted to see if we could get 100% of voting players voting on the
proposals. 

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:55:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG

> It might be one of those idioms that's more common on the east coast than
> the west.  I have spent time in every state west of Wisconsin, but none
> east.  That's the only thing I can figure.  I've heard ball of wax and
> barrel of monkeys and all sort of other fun stuff, but never, ever, a
> kettle of fish.
> 
> The image still makes me chuckle.

It's probably of British origin, so it's probably common in Canada.  And I
seem to recall it being one of the many visual puns on the cover of Pink
Floyd's "A Nice Pair"...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--The Human League:Rock & Roll/Nightclubbing
Current Book--Colin MacInnes:Absolute Beginners
Get thee down.  Be thou funky.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:14:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (CnH) 

>Calvin N Hobbes has found Phoebe

It always rained on my nights. Drizzled. I was twelve when I began to own
certain nights and repudiate the others. I could give them to myself because
they belonged to me. My own ephemeral dominion in temporal materialism. I
was sure no one else claimed them, and the soul in me -- the same soul that
had been mine an eternity ago -- that soul in me needed to protect its kin.
And drizzly nights, I knew, were most akin to me.

Out no more than a few minutes I saw a young woman, black hair knotted in
the back of her head. She was standing in my night air, hiding behind my
rain, behind my raindrops which hid her image, making it dance and blur. I
would have commanded my kingdom stop, had I not know it would not obey me.

The usurper sorcerer of this and many other nights had met his match. The
kingdom of the night he had assumed was his had discerned in the glow of the
priestess the true heir to that most ancient throne. She was dressed in
black. The mother of an emotion was she. Jealousy.

A word was spoken by the mistress of this night. I knew I heard it, for all
of creation made murmurs silent. The rain drops all fell on soft grass. The
air froze. The crisp expectant earth tensed up. Soundless. The word was a
language I felt I knew. Felt made sense. As some formidable noise. Like the
release of some long held breath. Not to be denied.

Then the earth rumbled gently as if satisfied and turning over. The air
again warm and smooth to breath. The rain resumed its rhythmic drumming.
Chains had been broken. Blake's poetic prophet had been set free from lesser
frames like a tiger from it's anxious symmetry. And free, that poet would
fulfill his promise, treat his experiences shamelessly; exploit them.

Rain drops dodged the slender figure as she made her way toward the marble
statue I had become. She turned around away from me, perhaps to take in the
surroundings, perhaps to show the flirting dance of Morgan Le Fay's dress
around her. But I noticed only a pearly nape, between dark hair and dark
dress, sprinkled with glittering stars of blackness. Fresh. Humid.

As I imagined her smiling, perhaps like all prophets might, my blood grated
like a cat in my ears, telling me I could again move. Summoning energy from
the secret reserves of my being, absorbing the energy of each droplet that
lost its perfection on my shoulders, arms and hands... I took a step back.

I heard a cry. Another. Falling from some great height in the nocturnal
silence. A splash of water. A body. I stopped. More cries, more desperate
and moving away. Cries that a river growing angry muted.

The drama that had unfolded gripped and gnawed at me tormentingly. Breathing
became more difficult. Fun. Life. Knowledge. Pointless. The clamoring
colours of a match box were but a tiny anchor holding a tanker pregnant with
oil from its rocky doom. By some inate reflex more than from conscious act,
a hand that once belonged to me as the night had, got hold of it. Opened it.

No pandora's box was this, to release some cleansing plague upon Camus's
world. No dense black box was this, whose secret would have to be cajoled
and ripped out. No nature was this, whose modest secrets were to be pried
and trotted out by ungentlemanly scientists. No. This was a box that told to
all its secrets wise. With Phoebe there, looking into a soul painfully
regained, answering the insoluble problem before her box became lost once
more: "Existentialism born anew."

And it was so.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:32:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Verdict

On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:
> 
> So, having experienced an Ad Hoc Committee, I'd say that it's rather a
> flawed setup.  I'd like to see the Contempt clause removed, at the very
> least, or the time extended, or a bit more structure as to how we're
> supposed to make our decisions.  I'd rather have done this whole thing with
> a Hearing.

I don't see the value of the Contempt Clause, I think a week is enough
time to delibrate and make a decision.  As for this structure thing, I
don't see the problem. No one has ever defined a structure or a
spokesperson for the Senate, and it seems to work fine. 

Perhaps a week to make the decision, and three days of grace for posting
it?

Can't a group of people reac a decision without someone setting down a
rigid structure for them to follow?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:33:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (CnH) 

>surroundings, perhaps to show the flirting dance of Morgan Le Fay's dress

Of course, that should read: "... dance of Vivien's dress..." Perhaps it can
be corrected on the web pages? I would appreciate it.

Mr Duh himself,
CnH

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:34:01 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Verdict

On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > So, having experienced an Ad Hoc Committee, I'd say that it's rather
> > a flawed setup.  I'd like to see the Contempt clause removed, at the
> > very least, or the time extended, or a bit more structure as to how
> > we're supposed to make our decisions. I'd rather have done this
> > whole thing with a Hearing.
> 
> Ad Hoc Committees don't need a rewite so much as they need
> responsibility from their members.
> 
> breadbox
> 
Hear, Hear.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Verdict

> I don't see the value of the Contempt Clause, I think a week is
> enough time to delibrate and make a decision.

Well, having been in this position several times now, I have to admit
that a week is not much time. The Supreme Court frequently takes
longer than that. Presumably what the Supreme Court does is much more
involved, but on the other hand there's only two people. The more
people, the longer it takes.

Following the three-day rule of thumb, some players may only go
through their email twice in the week. The first time they will
discover that they are on a Committee in the first place. They can
post their basic position, and (perhaps) reply to what other players
have already said, if anything. On their second reading of email, they
can continue the dialogue, but they will have to vote then. (Though if
they're not careful, they may not realize that they won't be logged in
again before the deadline.)

Three Speed days to post the results is probably in order....

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:36:27 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Default Votes

Robert Sevin wrote:

> >Active players who did not vote:
> >	breadbox
> >	Atilla the Pun
> >	You can call me Al
> >	Calvin N Hobbes
> >	CarsesraC
> >	Antimatter
> 
> I recommend that all of these players that are not casting votes ought
> to
> set their default votes, most likely to PRESENT. To set your default
> vote,
> all you need to do is send a message to Mohammed and let him know what
> you
> want your default vote to be. In fact, everyone probably ought to set
> their
> default vote to PRESENT, in case they forget to case a vote on a
> proposal. 
> 
I have my doubts as to whether default votes will exist much longer.
It can't hurt to use them while we've got them, though.  Also, didn't
You can call me Al leave the game?

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:44:18 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Default Votes

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Bollinger, John C. [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, July 01, 1997 9:36 AM
To:	[email-masked]'
Subject:	RE: Acka: Default Votes

Robert Sevin wrote:

> >Active players who did not vote:
> >	breadbox
> >	Atilla the Pun
> >	You can call me Al
> >	Calvin N Hobbes
> >	CarsesraC
> >	Antimatter
> 
> I recommend that all of these players that are not casting votes ought
> to
> set their default votes, most likely to PRESENT. To set your default
> vote,
> all you need to do is send a message to Mohammed and let him know what
> you
> want your default vote to be. In fact, everyone probably ought to set
> their
> default vote to PRESENT, in case they forget to case a vote on a
> proposal. 
> 
I have my doubts as to whether default votes will exist much longer.
It can't hurt to use them while we've got them, though.  Also, didn't
You can call me Al leave the game?

ThinMan

This is true he is listed as a former player in the gallery.
- -Karma

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:06:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Catching up on missed awards

I am presenting the following awards to the indicated players.
This is a general clean-up of missed awards rather than me trying
to remember when I marked proposals for a player past a multiple of 10,
which is the way it usually happens.  BCR = Blue Cross Rank.

Robert Sevin (BCR 64): awarded a gold stripe (3 silver stripes destroyed).
Calvin N Hobbes (BCR 42): awarded a silver stripe (his 2nd).
Malenkai (BCR 242): awarded a silver stripe
   (his 2nd; also has ruby slipper & gold stripe)

Upcoming awards:
Niccolo Flychuck is 2 proposals away from another silver stripe.
Mr. Lunatic Fringe is 3 proposals away from another silver stripe.
Alfvaen is 1 proposal away from a blue cross.
Malenkai is 8 proposals from another silver stripe. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Default Votes

NOTE: This message includes a Rant. If Guy Fawke's Soapbox still
exists, I am standing on it during this message.

>> I recommend that all of these players that are not casting votes
>> ought to set their default votes, most likely to PRESENT. To set
>> your default vote, all you need to do is send a message to Mohammed
>> and let him know what you want your default vote to be. In fact,
>> everyone probably ought to set their default vote to PRESENT, in
>> case they forget to case a vote on a proposal.
> 
> I have my doubts as to whether default votes will exist much longer.
> It can't hurt to use them while we've got them, though.

Sorry, but I'm completely opposed to the idea of default votes. A vote
of PRESENT indicates an opinion just as much as YES or NO does. It
indicates that I do not have strong feelings either way for this
proposal, that whether it passes or fails, I will be content. If I
haven't voted on a proposal, then you can assume that I haven't read
it closely yet, and that's about all. You can NOT assume that I don't
care about it.

There is some sense to equating ABSTAIN with DON'T CARE when your only
voting options are YES and NO. That is not the case here.

Furthermore, I am very much against the idea of making changes to the
rules for which less than half of the affected population has
expressed any opinion. In other words, I support quorum.

If people find quorum failures to be such a pain, then we shouldn't
consider getting rid of quorum, just the hyperreactionary fallout of
immediate two-day vacations for everybody who didn't vote. (Which is,
necessarily, over half the players.)

I think we already have enough safeguards in the game (Pending status,
Dead players, et al), to avoid another Quorum Crisis - not to mention
all the new ways to cast extra votes that have come up since. It's
been over a year since the Quorum Crisis, and what saved us then has
become a major headache in the meantime. It's caused the very term
"Quorum Crisis" to mean instead the results of the rule changes that
ended the real Quorum Crisis! But instead of blaming those changes,
people blame quorum itself. I can't believe that people have seriously
discussed dropping quorum entirely rather than just returning it to
the way it was originally. Or all these machinations introduced just
to avoid Quorum from ever failing. Cart! Horse!

Quorum was NOT MEANT TO BE AN EMERGENCY! It's supposed to mean that
your proposal can't be enacted because too few people have submitted
their opinions on it! Nothing more!

Unless someone convinces me that I'm off base here (and I admit the
possibility, because after all I AM ranting), I'm going to submit a
proposal that when a failure of quorum occurs, the Proposal fails and
THAT'S ALL.

Or, if that's too lenient, then we can dock everyone who didn't vote 5
points. Or more. Or less. Hell, dock them 25 points and A$100 and have
their name legally changed to "Just Another Asshole #<N>". I'll STILL
vote for it. I don't want anyone to think that I'm biased because I've
been forgetting to vote. I think voting is the single most important
activity in this game. (I fell behind because I'm forgetful, and the
Court's kept me busy.) But all I want is to get rid of this forced
vacation insanity. It has served its purpose once. It no longer serves
us, it annoys and hinders us. And if by chance we ever need it again,
we know where to find it.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:37:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Catching up on missed awards

> Upcoming awards:
> Niccolo Flychuck is 2 proposals away from another silver stripe.
> Mr. Lunatic Fringe is 3 proposals away from another silver stripe.
> Alfvaen is 1 proposal away from a blue cross.

That will be a happy day for me.  Tomorrow, with any luck.  I still
have my work cut out for me beating Malenkai to 2 Ruby Slippers,
though...  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Chris de Burgh:Flying Colours
Current Book--Colin MacInnes:Absolute Beginners
*/ \*  <- Tribbles having a swordfight

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:31:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Demonic Charge

I am going to the Library(assuming this doesn't queer the Mr. Lunatic Fringe 
Toga thing), and I am entering the Vault of the Book, in search of
forbidden knowledge.  (I also assume, I suppose, that if the CPPIA was in
Contempt, that I don't have to go to the Museum for my Art Appreciation
lessons yet...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--REM:Fireplace
Current Book--Colin MacInnes:Absolute Beginners
After things go from bad to worse the cycle repeats.

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 23:22:29 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 422

I decline judgement on CFJ 422

**two-star, singing,

"I see an eggplant and I want to paint it black."

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:36:19 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 2+1+9+9

Hmmm...I swear I wasn't planning this, but...

I hereby buy an Amber Banana from myself.

#transfer Alfvaen, Alfvaen: 10 A$: Amber Banana Purchase
#award Alfvaen: 1 Amber Banana: Amber Banana Purchase

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--REM:Fireplace
Current Book--Colin MacInnes:Absolute Beginners
She criticized my apartment, so I knocked her flat.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 14:14:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Treasure hunt

I am hereby going to Mr. Lunatic Fringe's house (whatever it's called
these days) for the purpose of claiming a Treasure Toga from among
the few remaining.

ThinMan
MLF's evil twin

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

Date: 1 Jul 1997 15:52:46 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Verdict 

AC>> > There is no provision in the Rule for an Ad Hoc Committee having a
AC>> > Spokesperson, but since I didn't want us to be in Contempt, I didn't see
AC>> > that anyone else was really going to do anything in time...
AC>>
AC>> It doesn't matter; you are late.  The verdict was due 6/30 at 13:00
AC>> EDT.  Contempt is described in rule 715, but the gist is that you all
AC>> must either pay A$100 or go to gaol for 3 days, the latter being the
AC>> default.

AC>I was afraid of that.  My, less than a hour late.  It's all Antimatter's
AC>fault, since he refused to vote.

AC>Well, I've never been to Gaol...though if I am going, I should perhaps
AC>reread the rule so I know my limitations.

AC>And let this stand as a warning to the next Committee.  Don't slack off.

I don't know if we've reported yet.  Just because the rules require the
committee to report doesn't mean they give the members of the committee
the power to report on its behalf.

Guy Fawkes                    s:Absolute Beginners
                      reasy fried noodles...

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

Date: 1 Jul 1997 16:04:26 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Verdict 

AC>On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:
AC>>
AC>> So, having experienced an Ad Hoc Committee, I'd say that it's rather a
AC>> flawed setup.  I'd like to see the Contempt clause removed, at the very
AC>> least, or the time extended, or a bit more structure as to how we're
AC>> supposed to make our decisions.  I'd rather have done this whole thing wit
AC>> a Hearing.

AC>I don't see the value of the Contempt Clause, I think a week is enough
AC>time to delibrate and make a decision.  As for this structure thing, I
AC>don't see the problem. No one has ever defined a structure or a
AC>spokesperson for the Senate, and it seems to work fine.

AC>Perhaps a week to make the decision, and three days of grace for posting
AC>it?

AC>Can't a group of people reac a decision without someone setting down a
AC>rigid structure for them to follow?

AC>Niccolo Flychuck

Perhaps the esteemed Mr. Flychuck has forgotten the earlier days of the
Senate, when Acka was lucky to get a verdict back within two weeks, let
alone one.  We are fortunate indeed that the present Senate has managed
to work a standard method amongst themselves.  However, it tok several
months of the Senate's existence for this to evolve -- it would be sheer
foolishness to think a group significantly larger than the Senate would
hit upon a smooth operating system on the first try.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: 1 Jul 1997 16:37:00 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: response to Rant 

In reply to breadbox's Rant concerning Quorum:

I initiated to first proposal to do away with Quorum (and for some
reason, I could have sworn it passed), and though mildly irritated by
the Justice's disbelief that any player could possibly consider it a
serious idea, I assert that Quorum is an idea whose time has long since
passed.

Let's examine the essence of Quorum failures -- it is simple: they occur
when not enough people vote.  Now, for a slightly more complex issue,
let's examine the major causes of non-voting: 1) forgetfulness, either
from forgetting to vote entirely or forgetting what the last proposal
you voted on was -- easy to do, particularly for those without web
access; 2) lack of time / not reading the proposal carefully enough to
form an opinion.  There exists a fairly strong sense of civic duty in
Acka, so those who read a proposal carefully and decide that they have
no opinion regarding its passage or failure usually (but not always, I
realize) vote PRESENT.

At any rate, the point is that a proposal's Quorum failure often has
little to do with its content, but rather with the failure of the other
players to fulfill their voting responsibility.  (yes, it is a
responsibility -- acka doesn't work if no one votes)  For me, little in
this game is so infuriating as seeing one of my proposals fail due to
Quorum -- it's not that people disagreed with my idea, but that my idea
was rejected because other people didn't do their civic duty.  This is
particularly true in the case of a Quorum Crisis (which I define as an
event where a large number of consecutive proposals fail to Quorum,
regardless of their content.)

When Quorum exists without a mechanism to remove the non-voters from
later voting calculations, the game is prone to the classical style of
Quorum Crisis.  When it exists with such a mechanism, the game is prone
to the modern style of Quorum Crisis, which is not so much a Crisis as a
pain in the butt.  (Which, IMO, is worse -- an event that is simply
irritating without the excitement of a Crisis).

Others may argue the theoretical merits of Quorum.  I, however, am a
pragmatist, and prefer to look at what Quorum has done for Acka.  I see
little good.  In one form it has caused large numbers of proposals to
fail almost arbitrarily, and in another form it has caused a slightly
mitigated form of the same, eliminating players from voting status at
the same time.  Perhaps in a perfect world Quorum would indicate the
rejection of a proposal because there is not enough opinion.  This,
however is not a perfect world; an abstract one perhaps, but one that
must exist, no matter how hard we try to make it otherwise, within the
constrainst of the players' real lives.  In this context, a Quorum
failure (especially a string of them) is not an indication of a lack of
information about a proposal, but an indication of the business of the
real lives of the players.  If we want a voting mechanism that is
influenced by the outside world rather than the game's play, that is
fine (I'm sure we could base one on the stock market's performance);
Quorum, however, is not, IMO, the way to do it.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue,  1 Jul 1997 17:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Benjamin Good <[email-masked]>
Subject: swinger's office 

i'm new to nomic and party chess, and i'm not sure i'm officially
register on acknomic yet, but i sent in mail about it, so i should be
registerd soon.  i talked to uri brook about party chess and it sounds
fun, so i want to buy a swinger's office.  what do i do now?

ben 

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 18:04:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Default Votes

> NOTE: This message includes a Rant. If Guy Fawke's Soapbox still
> exists, I am standing on it during this message.

Guy Fawkes's Soap Box is at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackata.htm#014

I started archiving all of the speeches ever made on it on the trinket
page, except that I do not have Guy Fawkes's original speech made on
it, nor my first one (I actually have these e-mails all archived, but 
haven't had the time to look for them).  

The box is currently located at the Museum, so it will eventually be
eaten by Beldin's Parka unless the game state is changed in such a 
way to prevent that :(

Malenkai
Trinket Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:20:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Default Votes & Prop 2185 

>I have my doubts as to whether default votes will exist much longer.
>It can't hurt to use them while we've got them, though.  Also, didn't
>You can call me Al leave the game?

I would like to encourage everyone to vote NO on Proposal 2185, which would
repeal the ability to set a default vote.

Regardless of your opinion of what a PRESENT vote means (and therefore
whether having a default vote of PRESENT is "honest"), and regardless of the
wisdom of setting your default vote to YES or NO, the following is
indisputably true: Any player could very easily send a nearly identical
message every couple of days, voting the same way on every proposal. A
default vote is just a labor saving device, and while it could theoretically
add to the Tabulator's work, it could easily be incorporated into Acrobot. 

All of the arguments proposed (that I have seen) argue that it isn't a good
idea to allow someone to specify a default vote, because it isn't wise to
allow someone to automatically vote the same way on every proposal. But they
can do it anyway, right now, this just makes it more convenient.

Finally, and this is my most important point, specifically directed against
the arguments that contend that a default vote of PRESENT is unnecessary. I
can't speak for every player, but I know that I personally do not have a
strong opinion on most proposals. It is far nicer for me to go through the
proposals, and only remember which ones I want to vote YES or NO on, and
forget the others. If I have a default vote set to PRESENT, I can do this. I
go through the proposals, record my YES and NO votes, and I'm done. Is it
important that I take the time to manually send in all of my PRESENT votes also?

The default vote system can allow someone to blindly vote, but that can be
done already. I urge you all to vote no on Proposal 2185, or I urge the
author to retract it.

Thanks,
Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 18:49:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 408 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 408 has been overtuned to FALSE.  The justices did not penalise
the original judge, so by rule CnH loses 1 point.  The court was
also two days late.  Hopefully these trivial calculations will be
eliminated soon.

#award breadbox : -4 A$
#award mr cwm : -4 A$

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
   Appeal: FALSE

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.

Malenkai's Appeal Reasoning:

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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The court has little to add as regards the reasoning of the appealer.
CFJ 168 indicates that this CFJ should be judged False to be
consistent with game custom set by the prior decision of CFJ 409.

However, the Court would like to add a few comments in regards to the
actual question originally brought up by the CFJ and its decision.
The first Judge's reasoning for considering CSR objections as
applicable game custom states: "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." To be precise, Rule
421 describes how players may object to a CSR, and then explains that
CSR's that were not objected to are put into effect. In contrast, Rule
2059 only describes that a CFJ is produced, without specifying what
statement is to be judged, and that only players who pass "the
scrutiny described above" achieve deification. The ambiguity of the
latter is not enough, the Court feels, to make an argument that game
custom supplies an interpretation for Rule 2059.

Also, given the fact that this rule was proposed by a relatively new
player, it seems entirely possible that the *intent* was for the CFJ
to be issued on the matter of whether or not the player had actually
met the necessary qualifications. Of course, this capability is
already inherent in the CFJ process, but someone unfamiliar with
Ackanomic might well be unaware of this. Note that this third
interpretation would also result in a verdict of False for this CFJ.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #172
*******************************