Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #175
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Wednesday, July 2 1997        Volume 02 : Number 175

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:13:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 415 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 415 has been overturned to FALSE.  /dev/joe is penalized 1 point.
In the words of breadbox: "This. Was. Hard.".  The reasoning is longer
than the appeal reasoning :)

Alfvaen has no Pulse Lasers, and has some trinkets named "Military Laser *".

#award breadbox : -5 A$ : tardy on CFJ 415
#award mr cwm : -5 A$ tardy on CFJ 415
 
Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 415
  Subject: Revenge of the Thargoids
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jun 22, 1997, 14:03h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

Alfvaen's Military laser 1-10 were turned into Pulse lasers.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

According to Rule 2104, "More Blatant Elitism":

"If a player assumes a title which requires a score higher than their own,
in addition to any penalties required by other rules, that player is deemed
to have been ambushed by Thargoids in hyperspace and blasted into a million
pieces, leading to the replacement of any Military lasers in the player's
possession by Pulse lasers, and the loss of 1 point."

My score was less than 151, the minimum for "Dangerous", and yet I assumed
the title "Dangerous", so I was ambushed by Thargoids.  That out of the
way, the question is whether or not "Military laser 1-10" satisfies the
conditions of the sentence.

Representing them as an "array" is merely a convenience.  I could also
write them "Military laser 1", "Military laser 2", "Military laser 3", etc.
Convention seems to dictate that these sort of trinkets, with a single
"base name" and a numerical index, can be referred to en masse by
pluralizing the base name, as "Inky Bloater Decoys".  Therefore, I did in
fact possess "Military lasers".  As I have pointed out, the word "any" in
front of "Military lasers" in R2104 implies that the phrase _should_ be
considered as a plural, so the parallel between "Military lasers" and
"Beldin's Parka" are weak.  Thus, each of the Military lasers, that is,
each of Military laser 1-10, in my possession, were replaced by Pulse
lasers by R2104.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

This falls down to a game custom/english-language interpretation argument,
and the situation here is very nearly identical to P2079, where a proposal
operated on "Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragments", and everyone seemed to
agree that this meant the trinket 'Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 1'
and its friends.  Cheap pulse lasers for everyone (good thing they are
expensive to use).

I verified that Alfvaen's score was less than 151 when he wrote the
statement; I found it to be 146 in the no-Azpiazu thread at that time
(and somewhat less in the thread with Azpiazu).

Malenkai's Appeal Reasoning:

>From Alvaen's Reasoning:

> [The] question is whether or not "Military laser 1-10" satisfies the
> conditions of the sentence.

That is indeed the question, and I am going to argue that it does not.
The sentence (actually phrase) in question, from the rule, is:

> leading to the replacement of any Military lasers in the
> player's possession by Pulse lasers

Alfvaen first makes an argument that the fact that he represented them
in an array, for convienence, makes no difference.  That is true.  For
the sake of argument, lets assume he created only a Trinket
named "Military laser 1".

There are only two types of entities that can satisify the term
"Military lasers" in the rule.  Those with actual lexical equivelence,
or those entities that, either by definition in the rules, or by custom,
are in fact a type of laser, specifically, a type of Military laser.

There are no Military lasers defined by the rules, and of course
"Military laser 1" is not actually a laser, thus we must examine
the cases of lexical equivelence and custom.

First of all, there is [unfortunate] game custom that any noun phrase
in the rules can be "pirated" by creating a Trinket with a lexical
equivelent name.  In the old days, this was called Malenkai's Loophole,
and done with R115 entities.  The most recent example of this before
this case was the case of Beldin's Parka, in which a Trinket by
that name was used to "pirate" the term in the Beldin's Pants rule.
Clearly this custom is well established and generally accepted, but in
all cases, the lexical equivelence was *exact*, and I argue that that
is necessary for this sort of thing to work.  The entity must be called
"Beldin's Parka".  For example, If I created a Trinket called "Beldin's
Green Parka", would that apply in the Beldin's Pants rule?  No, it
would not, I think the lexical warfare between snowgod and Antimatter
demonstrated that; demonstrated that "Beldin's Parka 1" would not apply
either.
 
That leaves the initator to somehow establish, through custom,
tradition, or common language usage, that the Trinket "Military
laser 1" is *also* some sort of Military laser, or, failing that,
something a little more than the lexical string "Military lasers",
at least enough to satisfy the phrase in the rule.

I fail to see how this has been established.  The Trinket is not
a laser, and there is no specific custom or tradition surrounding
lasers or the rule in question.

This leaves the initiator to look for general custom to apply to
the situation, and I believe this is how the first Judge found
TRUE, but I do not believe this is a proper application of custom.

The problem is that rule 2079, cited by the Judge, is the exception,
not the rule.  Given the custom and tradition of the Runestone of
Jukkasjarvi treasure hunt, we know how to construe "Runestone of
Jukkasjarvi Fragments" in rule 2079.  Rule 215/101 requires that we
find what was intended in this case.  We know what that *means*.
Custom has given those Trinkets the actual game *concept* of
RoJ fragments.

The case comes down to then, can we project the specific custom that
applies to the interpretation of rule 2079, to the general case, or
to the specific case "Military lasers" in rule 2104.  Certainly there
is no custom or tradition surrounding the Military lasers of the
rule, no Military lasers warfare or treasure hunt.  Do we know what
"Military lasers" *means*?  Custom and tradition has *not* given any
Trinket that contains "Military laser" the game *concept* of
Military laser.
 
There is no other rule or custom that would allow the specific custom
of rule 2079 to scope to the general case either, unless we assume,
a priori, that the custom established in that specific case is
automatically general.  I think it comes down to "spirit of the game".
It gives us the right interpretation in the case of rule 2079, but
does spirit of the game give us that any Trinket with the string
"Military laser" in its name is actually a Military laser?  This is
tantamount to saying that "Beldin's hooded fur pullover" would satisify
the Beldin's Pants rule, and I think its clear that the *general* custom
does *not* extend like this, hence a verdict of FALSE is indicated.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

First, it is not unquestionable that the case of Beldin's Parka is
completely applicable here. That case involved a single entity,
identified as such in the rules, and by name.

The case here, however, deals with the phrase "any Military lasers".
Now, it is entirely possible that this phrase could refer to a single
entity, but it is equally possible that it refers to several entities.
In fact, all of the below are valid interpretations:

* a unique entity named "Military laser";
* a unique entity named "Military lasers";
* all non-unique entities named "Military laser";
* all non-unique entities named "Military lasers";
* all entities that are known to be Military lasers;
* all entities that are known to be lasers AND to be Military.

Now, if the correct interpretation is one of the first four, then
there is a single name, which the rule gives explicitly, and lexical
equivalence is obviously a neccesary and sufficient test. If the
interpretation is one of the others, then lexical equivalence is not
quite so helpful.

The example of Proposal 2079 has been offered as precedent for this
situation. Now, if lexical equivalence was required of this rule, then
the phrase "all Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragments" would have to have
been written either as "all trinkets named 'Runestone of Jukkasjarvi
Fragment <N>', where <N> is replaced by a number" or as "the following
list of entities: 'Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 1', 'Runestone of
Jukkasjarvi Fragment 2', ..." etc., or some similar method.

Insisting on this level of specificity is overkill, surely. While
there is nothing wrong with being absolutely clear, it does not seem
that such detail needs to be mandatory. We are human beings, after
all, not computers, and Proposal 2079 is already unambiguous to human
beings in the form it was written. Everyone familiar with the game
state knows exactly what it referred to.

Moreover, the parallels between the case under judgement and that of
Proposal 2079 are manifold. We have a group of trinkets,
differentiated only by a serial number suffixed to their name, that is
referred to in a rule merely by stating the part of their names that
is common to all. Proposal 2079 also does not mention that "all
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragments" does not refer to actual
"Fragments" at all, but mere trinkets - which is very similar to what
this CFJ concerns.

And yet, there is definitely some ambiguity as to what "all Military
lasers" refers to (as the presence of this CFJ indicates). So, what's
the difference?

Well, one difference is simply that the phrase "all Runestone of
Jukkasjarvi Fragments" was not really put to the test. What if, a few
days before Proposal 2079's voting period was over, someone had
maliciously created a trinket called "Runestone of Jukkasjarvi
fragment 3.14159"? (Or, for that matter, a trinket called "A
newly-discovered fragment of the Runestone of Jukkasjarvi"? How about
one called "All Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragments"?) If so, Proposal
2079 might have been the source of this CFJ instead. But since nothing
like this happened, the proposal was unambiguous at the time it was
applied. It also had the advantage of being entirely enclosed in
double braces; thus it makes no difference now if someone were to
create the above trinkets. The rule it created remained unambiguous
for its full existence.

Proposal 2104 was not so fortunate. It continues to exist, and at
every moment we must answer the question, "What entities are included
in the term 'all Military lasers', when the rules are silent on the
issue?"

At the time that Proposal 2104 became a rule, a trinket named
"Military lasers" existed (and had in fact existed for three days).
As there was nothing else that "any Military lasers" could reasonably
refer to, and given the game customs we have, it has to be assumed
that those three words can, and do, refer to this trinket. If we
accept that that is the case, then we see that the rule precisely
names the entity.

Such a trinket also existed at the time that Alfvaen, in possession of
ten trinkets named "Military laser 1" through "Military laser 10", was
ambushed by Thargoids. The rule cannot both precisely name a single
entity and a group of completely different entities with the same
words. Since the former applied first, it created the only game custom
to be had. The Court has therefore decided that, because Alfvaen was
not in possession of any entity named "Military lasers", his ambush
did not result in any transmogrifications.

This decision may be seen by some as being unnecessarily harsh, or
excessively dependent on legalese-style arguments, or just plain
unintuitive and unsatisfying. What follows is written expressly to
those people.

Already, the Court can hear your protests. "And just WHY can't the
rule refer to both 'Military lasers' and 'Military laser 1' at the
same time? It says 'ANY Military lasers', does it not? That wording is
awfully inclusive, don't you think? And maybe we don't know just how
inclusive it is, but surely, if it can include something named
'Military lasers', it can include something named 'Military laser 1'."

To which the Court must reply: if you feel this way, then how do you
feel about something named "Military laser painted black"? Or
"Hand-held Military laser"? Surely the extra detail doesn't alter the
fact that it is unambiguously a Military laser. Right? So what about
the "Military laser-gun", the "Military laser-rifle", and the
"Military laser-emitting weapon"? What about the "Army laser", the
"Marine Corps photon blaster", and "Private Pip's coherent-light
emitter"? If none of the above phases you, then what about "Martial
light weapon"? Does that refer to a Military laser or nunchaku?

For those who would argue that everything was fine until the words
"Military laser" stopped appearing in the name, consider these
potential new entities: the "Paramilitary laser", the "Anti-Military
laser", the "Non-Military laser sight", the "Military laser power
supply", and the "Music of the Military laser light show".

Where do you draw the line? More to the point, can you choose a place
to draw it that is compelling enough that a majority of people will
agree that it's reasonable? The Court chose to draw the line between
syntax and semantics. If the rules aren't going to offer us any
indication as to the semantics, then we are going to insist on a
decision procedure that depends purely on syntax. In this case,
lexical equivalence.

To which some may object: "I understand why you have to avoid
semantics, but seeing that 'any Military lasers' includes 'Military
laser 1' isn't an issue of semantics. It's a lexically equivalent name
with a serial number tacked on. There's no interpretation involved,
really."

But even this tiny leap is a semantic one. Why is it clear that this
trinket is a laser? Maybe it's a 1 instead. Why not? What about an
entity called "Green neon 1"? Is that a green tube of neon in the
shape of a numeral 1, or the first in a series of neon atoms? Is a
"Foam rubber 1" the first in a series of ineffectual contraceptives?
You cannot assume the 1 in "Military laser 1" is merely a serial
number without introducing semantics.

"But serial numbers are a game custom, because trinkets have to have
unique names."

But this still introduces semantics. Applying game custom requires
semantics and interpretation.

"What do you have against semantics, anyway? Just a moment ago you
argued that we shouldn't write our rules as if they were for computers
to read, and here you are acting just like one, by refusing to
consider anything but syntax."

Normally, the Court has nothing against semantics. The Court strongly
prefers semantics. The Court's main reason for existence is the
interpretation of rules.

But the rules are no help here. As far as the rules are concerned,
this three-word phrase is utterly void of meaning. Its semantic
content is nil. And while standard English usage does give it meaning,
in the absence of any rules to constrain or even direct, English gives
it far too much potential meaning. The Court, therefore, rejects all
attempts to assign characteristics to entities based solely upon their
names, no matter how suggestive they may be.

"Well, if that's really how you feel, then why did you decide that
that phrase refers to anything at all? If it is void of meaning in the
eyes of the rules, then why shouldn't it just refer to nothing at all,
until the rules are changed to provide it with a clear meaning?"

Because, there is a long-established game custom that when a rule
refers to something that isn't otherwise defined, the first entity
that comes along with a matching name is taken as what is being
referred to. If you've read this far, then you can see that this
custom has the potential to make life very difficult. But excising
that particular custom could also be quite difficult, and in any case
the Court is not empowered to flout game custom without due process.

As for the question of what would have happened had there been nothing
in the rules or in the game custom to guide the interpretation of the
phrase, the Court leaves that to a future CFJ.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:15:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 421 Verdict

CFJ 421 has been judged TRUE.

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

Call For Judgment 421
  Subject: Interpreting Literature
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jun 28, 1997, 2:33h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 2176 is Literature

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The alleged literature in the proposal is:

> "There has been a spacecraft sighted, flying high above the sky."
> [They Might Be Giants, "For Science", 1st verse]

> "Yes, I will kiss the girl from Venus, for science."
> [They Might Be Giants, "For Science", 3rd verse]

> "Now listen all you swingers, don't you try to tag along."
> [They Might Be Giants, "Absolutely Bill's Mood", line 12]

All the quotes have less than 14 words, but more than 7 words.

=From Rule 210:

> This quotation must be an exact copy of words found in, written,
> uttered or otherwise communicated by the source, enclosed in
> quotation marks. It must be either a complete sentence of 7 words or
> more, or a contiguous phrase of at least 14 words in length. [This
> last bit is to try and stop people from trying to pass off "to be"
> as a quote from Hamlet, and the like.]

Clearly the "contiguous" provision applies to the quotes as used in
the proposal, not the source.  However, what about the term "sentence".

There are two things at work here:

1) Does "sentence" as used in the above quote from rule 210, mean that
the quote must be a sentence 'as used in the proposal', or as it 'appears
in the source material'.  Obviously the CFJ is trivially true if it
is the former.  I tend to think the latter was intended, but the rule
is not clear.  There is no extant game custom, is there?  If so, it
must be used, if not, spirit of the game must be used to find the
proper rendering of "sentence" as used above.

2) All the quotes in question are from lyrics.  Generally lyrics and
poetry are not punctuated as sentences, so it can be argued that
most lyrics are not sentences, even if they seem sentence-like,
although some may be.  It may be the case that one or more of the
quotes above is actually punctuated as a sentence in the source,
indicating true (the Judge may have to do some research).  However,
its more important for the judge to address the general case of what
constitues a "sentence" in lyrics and verse (and other forms) if it
is deemed that "sentence" in rule 210 refers to the source, not the
proposal.

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

Lyrics aren't really done in sentences, which makes it difficult to pick
sentences from them, and it would be a little restrictive to have to use 14
words when quoting lyrics (or poetry, or whatever). Perhaps the rule should
be amended.

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:17:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 417 Verdict

CFJ 417 has been judged TRUE.  The game state snaps into place 
appropriately :)

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

Call For Judgment 417
  Subject: Posthumous Voting
Initiator: Mohammed
    Judge: two-star (selected Jun 24, 1997, 20:41h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

In determining whether a proposal passes or fails, votes cast on the
proposal by players who subsequently left the game are considered
along with the other votes on the proposal.

Mohammed's Reasoning:

This comes up because You can call me Al voted on a few proposals and
then left the game.  When the proposals were finalized it turned out
Yccma had cast a potentially deciding YES vote.  If this is TRUE,
Yccma's votes count and the proposals in question are accepted.

Rule 106 says:

As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period ends,
the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly. The proposal is
then accepted if a quorum has been achieved and the required number of
YES votes were cast on the proposal.

No mention is made of players, undead, or registration.  It has been
mentioned that Wayne never counted posthumous votes, but the rules
have changed significantly since those days.

two-star's Reasoning:

The initiator's reasoning is essentially correct. Unlike the non-voting
player case, there is no other rule which attempts to remove the votes
of players who have left the game.

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

Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 01:25:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : HArf Swinger and Party Chess

On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> At 12:28 AM 7/3/97 +0300, you wrote:
> >
> >Now that Bascule has left, I'd like to remind the Harf party that its
> >Swinger Office is vacant, and it is the Harf Swinger's turn in Party
> >Chess. The turn deadline is less tha 24 hours away, if the Party members
> >want an extension, they should ask for it _before_ the turn deadline.
> >
> >Niccolo Flychuck
> >Chess-Umpire
> 
> The Harf party formally requests a deadline extension.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

I am extending the deadline by three days over the original deadline. 
This makes the deadline July 6 21:09 GMT

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 18:22:07 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Default Votes

- -----Original Message-----
From:	John Frederic Mc Coy [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, July 01, 1997 11:00 PM
To:	Ackanomic
Subject:	RE: Acka: Default Votes

On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 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.

I agree entirely.  If I ahve voted PRESENT on something, it means that I
read the proposal, and decided I didn't really care if it passed or not.
When I've abstained, it means that I either missed it somehow, or was so
cunfused by it that I decided to leave it out of my latest batch of votes
for later review (and then probably forgot or didn't have the time).

>
> 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!

Speaking as someone who never experienced the Quorum Crisis, I have to
agree, more or less, with the above.  I think Quorum is a perfectly
sensible idea, it's just one that this place seems to have trouble getting
the hang of.

>
> 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.
>

Well, I do see one useful thing behind the system we have now, that would
be lost if we made the changes you suggest.  By changing all the
abstaining player's statuses, we ensure that the next proposal doesn't
fail do to lack of quorum as well (unless something weird like the Aliens
are interfering).  Perhaps chaing the status of anyone who abstains to
pending, or something, would work?  This way, we eliminate the dead
weight, but therey can still vote anytime they want to (would votes that
they had already cast still count if their status was so changed?). I
realize that Pending is historicaly associated with players who ahve never
voted, and it would probably be illegal for pending players to hold
offices (not sure on that one), so perhaps some sort of new status would
be in order.  Heck, maybe default votes should only be used for players
who didn't vote in a no qourum situation.  Anyone who failed to vote when
something didn't meet quorum, gets their default set to present until they
vote yes or no on something...

> breadbox
>
>

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

I attest that most people do vote and we're making a mountain out of a mole 
hill the acrobot was down a week ago and when I went to submit my votes 
they we're re4jected but I've been in the game for about 3 weeks and vote4s 
we're fine till the bot crashed. I've had no trouble the last few days 
since that genius Mohaammed got everything up and running and if you go to 
the bot it couldn't be simpler to votew the people who are not voting 
aren't payin' attention to the proposals which is the basis of this game 
 as I understand iy "To change the rules" this is done by voting in 
proposals. I know some people don't go to the bot to vote but it is so easy 
to look at proposals and click with your mouse button under yes, no or 
present (phew!!) that may sound hard but it's not, and furthermore these 
default votes will have people paying less attention to proposals.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 19:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proxies

On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Our highly esteemed Ackanomic colleague Niccolo Flychuck recently
> lobbied to be chosen as your voting Proxy.  Lest you select him for
> such a responsability for lack of an alternative, I put myself
> forward as another choice for your voting Proxy.  My Ackanomic
> ThinMan

Well, so we're campaigning now, are we?  Very well, let me throw my hat
into the ring. =)  Select me as your proxy!  I'm the guy who brought you
really low Magic Numbers, obviously I must have lots of point gaining in
mind.  And as far as content goes, well I've spent something like half my
time here as the Harfmeister, so you can't go wrong there!

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 18:22:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  It's not that simple

Proposal 2196 (The condition my condition is in.) would lift the ban
on conditional proposals, but I think it goes a little too far.

Most conditional proposals are okay, but there are some evil corner
cases that *must* be addressed.  I remember this because one of my
first proposals after joining the game attempted to add a mechanism
for conditional proposals.  (It failed, of course.)

[ History notes: At the time, popular opinion had it that you could
just darn well wait a week for the proposal that you are watching to
pass or fail and submit your (dependant) proposal *then*.  What's the
rush anyway?  ...We in fact *had* conditional proposals for a while,
later on, but I got it repealed later.  No one ever used it.  :o) ]

Anyway, the other big concerns were: (1) conditions that depended upon
personal information.  The Judge would have to pry, and this could get
ugly.  I imagine a group using their Bonus Votes to pass a proposal
with the condition "If (blah blah blah internal church document)
contains an odd number of letter 'e's, then blah blah blah happens."
Obviously there must be a CFJ to determine whether the document
contains an odd number of 'e's, and the Judge is then free to release
the document to the public-- yuck.

(2) conditions that depend upon information that won't be available at
the time:  This could happen if someone submits something that says
"If the Blue Jays win the World Series, blah blah blah" expecting the
World Series to be over by the time the proposal's voting period is
up, but then one of the games is rained out... oops.

Naturally, both these cases will be very rare.  So it's nothing
critical.  Anyway, that was before we had all this great game custom
on PK.  I think some fairly decent language might be

"(Ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless effects are ignored.
Conditional effects that depend on information that is not publicly
knowable at the time of application are ignored.)"

- -- 
Mohammed
In Zaire, she left him for chefs.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #175
*******************************