Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #210
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 21 1997         Volume 02 : Number 210

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:39:01 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 140 (two-star)

> Call for Criminal Judgement 140
>   Subject: Malpractice
> Initiator: Mr. Lunatic Fringe
>     Judge: two-star (selected Jul 20, 1997, 19:51h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Mr. Lunatic Fringe has commited a crime.
> 
> Suggested Penalty:
> 
> A puplic apology not to exceed 92,000 lines of text.

I'm not sure if this is a valid CFCJ, because the category of "Public
Apology" states "1 OR MORE lines by Player X"(emphasis mine).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
"What a tasteful and relevant little story."

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:42:41 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2243

> > "Protected" is no longer a word with any force in the Rules, as far as I
> > can tell.  I will not retract my proposal on this grounds, nor do I think
> > that players should necessarily vote no on it, because I do not believe it
> > will break any existing Gadget.

> This has *nothing* to do with the word "protected", it has to do with the
> *rest* of clause (vi).  All blueprints which affect the game state will
> be destroyed if clause (vi) is removed -- clause (vi) is what gives 
> blueprints (and gadgets) the authority to affect the game state.
> That is acka's choice, but I find gadgets and blueprints fun, and see
> no reason to eliminate them.

The *rest* of clause (vi) is in square brackets, so has no legal force.  I
still fail to see that your objection has any substance.  Submit a CFJ if
you still disagree.  Perhaps the _existing_ Gadgets rule does not do what
it has been thought for a very long time that it did.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Denver:Greatest Hits Vol. 2
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
The covers of some books are too far apart.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 21:52:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2243

> The *rest* of clause (vi) is in square brackets, so has no legal force.  I
> still fail to see that your objection has any substance.  Submit a CFJ if
> you still disagree.  Perhaps the _existing_ Gadgets rule does not do what
> it has been thought for a very long time that it did.

The part of clause (vi) not in [brackets] is:

>     (vi) A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a Protected entity 
> if its Blueprint so specifies.

=From rule 101:

> The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
> rules.

Without clause (vi), explain how a gadget can affect the game state.
Game custom gives us the proper interpretation of "Protected entity",
basic translation being "any entity", when Entity protection was
replaced by rule 500, and Action protection was replaced by rule 101.
No need for a CFJ here.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:05:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2243

> > The *rest* of clause (vi) is in square brackets, so has no legal force.  I
> > still fail to see that your objection has any substance.  Submit a CFJ if
> > you still disagree.  Perhaps the _existing_ Gadgets rule does not do what
> > it has been thought for a very long time that it did.
> 
> The part of clause (vi) not in [brackets] is:
> 
> >     (vi) A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a Protected entity 
> > if its Blueprint so specifies.
> 
> =From rule 101:
> 
> > The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
> > rules.
> 
> Without clause (vi), explain how a gadget can affect the game state.
> Game custom gives us the proper interpretation of "Protected entity",
> basic translation being "any entity", when Entity protection was
> replaced by rule 500, and Action protection was replaced by rule 101.
> No need for a CFJ here.

I remain unconvinced, and will submit a CFJ to see.  I may or may not
retract my proposal in the meantime.  (I think I'm in a bit of a fractious
mood today, as the result of suffering the effect of _ungodly_ heat.  The
next time anyone looks up, sees no clouds to block the blistering heat of
that nuclear furnace hovering overhead, and says, 'What a lovely day!', I
may have to kill them.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Olivia Newton-John:Magic
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
Don't set fire to the one I love...

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:07:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 439 (Karma)

Karma has been selected.  I see nothing to prevent a NVP from submitting
a CFJ, I apologise for the earlier implication to the contrary.

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

Call For Judgment 439
  Subject: Ambassador
Initiator: Voting Gnome
    Judge: Karma (selected Jul 20, 1997, 22:07h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The position of Ambasador is not an Ackanomic Office.

Voting Gnome's Reasoning:  

Rule 419.1  crreates the position of Ambasador,  but does not
declare it to be a political or functional office.  Neither does it
specify any elective procedure for filling the position.  Additionally,
while Rule 419.1 (along with 419.2)  outline "duties"  of the Ambasador,
nothing is mentioned of "privileges",  which Rule 401 specifically states
is a commonality with all Offices.  Thereby,  any Player volunteering may
become the Ambasador.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:28:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 440 (ThinMan)

ThinMan has been selected.

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

Call For Judgment 440
  Subject: Gadgets
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 20, 1997, 22:28h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Removing Clause (vi) of Rule 595, "Gadgets", will cause many existing
Gadgets to stop working since they will no longer be able to manipulate
entities.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

I am phrasing it that way because I find it easier than the converse; I
believe that it should be ruled FALSE.

The clause in question is(excluding square-bracketed text which does not
change the effect):

  (vi) A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a Protected entity
       if its Blueprint so specifies.

I have listed in a recent email message the rules which contain the word
"Protected", and they are few.  I do not believe that removing this
restriction will have the effects that Malenkai claims.

Malenkai stated that he beleieves game custom holds that all entities
are "Protected", because of that phrasing in an earlier version of Rule
500.  However, Niccolo Flychuck also stated, in reference to a recent
proposal to amend Rule 1301, that "Protection language is obsolete".  So it
seems to me that no entities are Protected, except perhaps those that
specifically state it in the Rules, and I can't find any real reason why a
Gadget should be able to manipulate those things in the first place.

If what is _meant_ is that Gadgets may manipulate any entity, then perhaps
the CSRR Officer should change Rule 595 to reflect this fact if this CFJ is
judged true.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 21:50:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: End of Cycle

Here's the end-of-cycle stuff for mohammed's bot:

Get rid of old CGE's:

#award CarsesraC: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award fnord: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Joon: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Karma: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Malenkai: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Niccolo Flychuck: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Red Barn: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Robert Sevin: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award two-star: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Ackers: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award CV1701: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Sunflare: -1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15

Malenkai's stuff for winning:

#award Malenkai: +0 Right-Handed Grapefruit : end of cycle 15 (already had it)
#award Malenkai: +1 Badge of Glory : end of cycle 15
#award Malenkai: +1 Won a Cycle : end of cycle 15

New CGE's:

#award Lipid: +1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Dread Pirate Roberts: +1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15
#award Ace Rimmer: +1 Chartreuse Goose Egg : end of cycle 15

Tax: 20% of each player or undead's A$, 10% of malenkai's.
The treasury collected over A$5000 in tax here, but gave almost A$2000
out right away in score bonuses. 

#award Ace Rimmer: -124 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Alfvaen: -146 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Antimatter: -205 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Atilla the Pun: -158 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award AZTEC GOD: -126 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Ben: -18 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award breadbox: -106 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Calvin N Hobbes: -73 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award CarsesraC: -163 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Chalmers: -127 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Darth Vader: -192 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Dread Pirate Roberts: -126 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award fnord: -106 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Guy Fawkes: -33 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Joon: -143 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Karma: -9 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Lipid: -135 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Malenkai: -8 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Chaos: -306 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award mr cwm: -37 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Mr. Lunatic Fringe: -43 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Niccolo Flychuck: -40 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Red Barn: -40 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Robert Sevin: -190 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Sammy: -126 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Techno: -77 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award ThinMan: -63 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award two-star: -167 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Voting Gnome: -202 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Vynd: -30 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Ackers: -81 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award AirHead: -208 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Bascule: -152 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Brinjal: -110 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award CV1701: -142 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award fon: -52 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award G. Peefalt: -154 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Jammer: -62 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Lestrade: -188 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Ludwig: -112 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Narf: -34 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Pascal: -45 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Strider: -37 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Swann: -210 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award 23 Skidoo: -190 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award this is not a name: -87 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Uncle Sam: -103 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax
#award Wayne: -0 A$ : end of cycle 15 tax

Bonuses for scores at end of cycle:

#award Malenkai: +201 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Robert Sevin: +180 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Alfvaen: +149 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Chaos: +126 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Mr. Lunatic Fringe: +115 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award /dev/joe: +114 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Techno: +108 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Guy Fawkes: +99 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award ThinMan: +96 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Vynd: +96 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Voting Gnome: +89 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award fnord: +87 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Rex Mundi: +84 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Calvin N Hobbes: +79 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award breadbox: +71 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Antimatter: +60 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Atilla the Pun: +55 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award mr cwm: +41 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award CarsesraC: +40 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Karma: +26 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award AZTEC GOD: +21 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Red Barn: +19 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Niccolo Flychuck: +3 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award two-star: +3 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Sammy: +1 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Joon: +1 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Chalmers: +1 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Darth Vader: +1 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus
#award Ben: +1 A$ : end of cycle 15 score bonus

Archaeologist transfer

#transfer breadbox, Calvin N Hobbes: archaeologist : end of cycle 15

> g-i) Scores are reset to 0, and bonds are based as if previous scores
> are 0.

Those happen tomorrow.  Looks like another easy cycle for the bond harfer. :-)

> j) Joon is removed from the game as if e quit.  If e was never active,
> it is as if e never joined the game.

As breadbox mentioned, Joon was non-Voting.  The "Leaving the Game" rule
makes exception for non-Voting players, who normally never become active;
they become undead and all the other normal stuff like when an active player
quits.

> k) Rule 603 is amended to change the magic number's base value to 239.
> 
> l) Increment cycle to 16, set mn to 239.
> 
> m) All players (no one) are released from Gaol.

You forgot "/dev/joe is finally removed from the Afterlife". :-)

/dev/joe
no longer sheltered

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:04:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 140 (two-star) 

>
>I'm not sure if this is a valid CFCJ, because the category of "Public
>Apology" states "1 OR MORE lines by Player X"(emphasis mine).

This occured to me about a minute after I sent it off, but I don't know
what to do about it but retract this CFCJ, which I hereby do.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 23:45:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440 (ThinMan)

In order to waste a bit of bandwidth, and because the protection 
business is one of the more interesting areas of the game to me,
and I love history, and history of the concepts in rules, I'm gonna
throw the following historical dissertation on the obsolecence of
protection onto CFJ 440 with my bronze torch.  Its not particularly
well written :(, so I will not submit it as an actual historical
dissertation (also because it contains alot of rhetoric as well 
pertaining to the CFJ).

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

Malenkai's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

> Alfvaen's Reasoning [quoted]:

> I have listed in a recent email message the rules which contain the word
> "Protected", and they are few.  I do not believe that removing this
> restriction will have the effects that Malenkai claims.

The provision in clause (vi) is a an *enabling provision*, not a
restriction.  The key question here is to ask: What does the word
"Protection" mean as used in clause (vi).  I am going to make a 
case that it means "any" or "all" (or is a no-op), whereas the
initiator appears to make a claim that it is an attribute, without
definition, yet with significance (if it has no significance, then it
doesn't really exist, leading to any or all anyway).  I am going to
argue that my construction is supported by game custom, whereas no other
is. (Saying "protected entity" means "all entities" is the same as 
saying "protected" is a no-op).
 
> Malenkai stated that he beleieves [sic] game custom holds that all 
> entities are "Protected",

I did not say such a thing, and prefer to be quoted directly in the
future, rather than have my quotes misconstrued.  I stated that game
custom gives us the construction of "Protected entity" to mean "any
entity", because that is what it meant from the time Blanket Protection
was added with proposal 986, and continued to mean when its definition
was removed with proposals 1416 and 1539.  

The question ramins, then, what does "Protection" mean when its defintion 
is removed.  When proposal 986 was accepted, giving all entities 
and actions Protection by default, the term became obsolete as an adjective,
yet was not removed from all places as an adjective.  Some entities were
described by the adjective, whereas others were not, yet the idea of
Protection as described in rule 592 applied to everything, hence the
word had no real meaning where it was actually used as an adjective at
that point; it was obsolete, a no-op.

That is when this custom was created, and it applied to clause (vi) at
that time.  It remained defined as a noun in rule 592 for entities and
actions (ie, rule 592 delineated what it meant for an entity to be
Protected).  Entity Protection was removed from rule 592 and moved to
rule 500 by proposal 1416.  Proposal 1416 was a very long proposal which
removed virtually all instances of the word Protection from the rules
where it pertained to entites.  This did not change the customary 
meaninglessness of the word.  The fact that it did not remove the
instance in clause (vi) did not remove the custom created by its
obsolecence by proposal 986, and did not change what it *meant* to be
Protected, which for entities, was now described by rule 500, without
use of the actual word.  Proposal 1539 later moved action Protection
into rule 101, strengthened the concept of Protection, and dumped rule
592 altogether.  Again, this did not change the customary null rendering
of the word as used as an adjective.  Clause (vi) meant the same thing,
whether or not proposal 1416 accidently forgot to remove it.  Proposal
1416 did not create this custom because of the oversight, it was *already*
there with 986.

> However, Niccolo Flychuck also stated, in reference to a recent
> proposal to amend Rule 1301, that "Protection language is obsolete".

Niccolo may or may not have said that, but the statement is true, IMO.
As I have stated, it became obsolete by proposal 986, yet game custom
allowed it to exist as a null op in various places, including clause (vi).

The rules are silent on the proper construction of the term "Protected",
therefore the above game custom must be consulted to find the correct
rendering, and since proposal 986, that rendering is a no-op.

Given that, clause (vi) gives Gadgets the ability to manipulate entities
as described in their blueprints.  Without clause (vi), Gadgets have
no rule-based authority to change the game state, hence they cannot,
as rule 101 is clear on the matter of the game state may only be changed
as described in the rules (which, ironically, is part of my half of the
elimination of Protection and CFJ 113 -- proposal 1539).

> seems to me that no entities are Protected, except perhaps those that
> specifically state it in the Rules, and I can't find any real reason why a
> Gadget should be able to manipulate those things in the first place.

To clarify my difference of opinion with the initiator: He appears to
be arguing for Protection to be an attribute of entities, even in the
absense of a definition of the term, and I am arguing that Protection
is an obsolete term whose rendering, in the places it remains, is given 
to us by game custom; it is *not* an attribute.  I am *not* arguing
that all entities are *Protected*, but that "Protected" means "any" as
used in clause (vi).  Indeed, game custom itself favors my interpretion
over that of the initiator, because that is how we have been doing it
in the case of clause (vi) since proposal 986, over a year now (gee time
flies...).  If the initiator's apparent interpretation indeed held sway,
then gadgets could *not* manipulate most entities, and the CFJ would
indeed should be judged FALSE for that reason, but that is not the game
custom interpretation of clause (vi).  In any case, I cannot find how
gadgets will manipulate *any* entities, under *either* interpretation,
if clause (vi) is removed (although if the initiator's apparent non-
customary construction is chosen, it doesn't really matter much).
   
> If what is _meant_ is that Gadgets may manipulate any entity, then perhaps
> the CSRR Officer should change Rule 595 to reflect this fact if this CFJ is
> judged true.

Yes, this is a perfect candidate for a CSRR, but the enabling provision
of clause (vi) must remain.  I do not see how the CFJ can be judged other
than TRUE.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:14:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: BWG

Come debate CFJ 440, or otherwise waste bandwidth, on IRC now :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:24:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rule 257

Chalmers, Darth Vader, Lipid, and Sammy did not respond to a rule 257
message sent to me by another player.  In the case where they never
became active, and were voting players, they are removed from the
game without undead, otherwise they are put on vacation, or have an
undead created, as appropriate.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:37:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 141 (Rex Mundi)

Rex Mundi has been chosen.  

I note that this CFCJ may be invalid do to the no juryrigging provision
on substantially similar CFJs.  However, it could be argued that the
thing labelled as CFCJ 140 was not in fact a CFCJ at all, because it 
was not submitted as described in the rules (qv CFCJ 119).  This means
that MLF may not have lost 1 point on 140's retraction.  If it were left
up to me, I would favor the latter interpretation based on the *recent*
game custom of CFCJ 119,  (although see CFCJ 109)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 141
  Subject: Malpractice
Initiator: Mr. Lunatic Fringe
    Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jul 21, 1997, 00:37h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Mr. Lunatic Fringe has commited a crime.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe's reasoning:

On June 26th, the senate reached a decision on the matter of internoic
proposal 342.  I, mistakenly, believed that the senate had not reached a
decision, and was acting under that impression when I abstained while
casting Ackanomic's vote in internomic.  If that isn't the crime of
malpractice, I don't know what is.

Suggested Penalty:

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 92,000 or more lines by Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:49:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: BWG Laser

I am building a BWG Laser.  It will be done in a few days.

Malenkai
Wizard

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #210
*******************************