Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #216
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, July 24 1997        Volume 02 : Number 216

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:34:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2236 accepted (The Sadness of The Tribe)

> Proposal 2236
> The Sadness of The Tribe
> Alfvaen
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  15 / 18 = 83.333333%
> Yes:  11    No:  4     Present:  0   ...Proposal accepted.

This was Alfvaen's 30th accepted proposal.
I am hereby awarding him a silver stripe.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:10:04 -0800
From: "Jerome Herrman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: tattoo 

Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Jerome Herrman
To:  'acka'
Subject:  acka: tattoo
Date: 1997-07-24 12:10
Priority: 3
Message ID: 2681751C0704D111948C0060976638FA
Conversation ID: acka: tattoo

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

I guess I won't be recommending Karma's tattoo services as I have yet to   
get mine done.  I have been in this tattoo parlor for 4 days now with no   
tattoos.

Techno

While an intelligent blind funny detective from another planet was with a
team of kangeroos, one cosmic Russian from Indiana stole all the air.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:38:28 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: CFJ440 

I accept Judgement on CFJ 440.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:53:37 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Vacation 

I hereby return from vacation, if, in fact, I am on vacation.

I name /dev/joe as my voting proxy.

I advise Ackanomicans that I am still relatively out of touch, and will
remain so through Monday, at least.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:14:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: P2228 Error in Vote Report

At 05:55 PM 7/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Proposal 2228
>another Contract negotiation
>Chaos
>
>Votes cast by active players:  14 / 18 = 77.777778%
>Yes:  12    No:  1     Present:  1   ...Proposal accepted.
>
>
>Active players who did not vote:
>	Mr. Lunatic Fringe
>	You can call me Al
>	Robert Sevin
>	CarsesraC
>	fnord
>	Antimatter

My vote is proxied to Mr. Lunatic Fringe. If he fails to vote, I believe the
rule specifies that I cast a vote of PRESENT. Here is the appropriate quote
from Rule 106:

"At the instant before the end of the voting period of a proposal, all
Voting Players that have not cast a vote on the proposal, and have a Proxy,
will cast a vote identical to the vote cast by their Proxy (if their Proxy
cast a vote) on the proposal. If a player's Proxy has abstained, then that
player will cast a PRESENT vote on the proposal."

So on this proposal, as well as P 2231-2233, my vote should be PRESENT.

I kindly request that this be corrected.

Thanks,
Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:45:18 -0600 
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Resignations, part 1

>I am appointing Alfvaen as Acting Bond-Harfer and Acting Scorekeeper.
>A nomination begins now for each of these offices.  Alfvaen has
>already volunteered, but he'll have to volunteer again privately.

Hmmm...I thought that /dev/joe remained Acting officer until new Officers
were appointed.  But whatever...I'll get started on it.  I don't know if
I'll be able to put up a web page right away, maybe not for a few days(I
do have some of my web pages transferred to the other server, but nothing
from Acka yet).  Until then, anybody can find out by sending me email.

>I am announcing intent to resign the office of Financier.  This is
>something I should have done a long time ago.
>
>I am very much behind on my mail.  I am almost certain I will be
>leaving the game soon.  I know I mentioned an interest in a few jobs
>and so forth, but the game is too much for me right now (and probably
>will be for the next year or so.)

You have seemed to be a little busy since I've been in the game.  Which
is too bad; I wish everyone had all the free time they could possibly use,
but I suppose not even I have that(and I should be using more of it to
look for a job anyway...:-/).

>I enjoyed it -- heck, still enjoy it-- far more than anyone has any
>right to enjoy anything so fundamentally useless.  :o)
>
>The problem that I see now is that either a fairly proficient Python
>hacker has to come forth and claim the twin jobs of Promoter and
>Tabulator, or the Acrobot will go down.  It won't be the first time we
>lost a bot.

>I personally feel that the Acrobot code is readable and maintainable,
>but what do I know? 

If you know Python.  :-)  I'm going to be using /dev/joe's scoring and
bond programs, but I will be rewriting them in Perl sometime so I can
maintain them myself.  (And yes, I still prefer it.  Now if I can just
get that *&%^# pangram program to work...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ...sort of)
Current Album--Stevie Nicks:Bella Donna
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
Will herd cats for food.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:55:15 -0600 
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Retraction

I am hereby retracting Proposal 2243, "If It Ain't Broke...", pending the
results of CFJ 440(?).  I may resubmit with minor changes in a little
while.  (Instead of deleting clause (vi), I might just reword it so that
it has the same effect Malenkai claims it does, or something similar,
without using the "Protected" wording.)

- --
- --Alfvaen (Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ...sort of)
Current Album--April Wine:The Best of April Wine Rock Ballads
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
Tagline not available, try again later.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:26:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: ThinMan's Vacation

I need it clarified whether ThinMan went on vacation, and if
so, when.  I never saw such an announcement, nor is such indicated
on the web pages.  There was a time, hovever, when my mail was
bouncing.

Thx in advance
Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: ThinMan's Vacation

> I need it clarified whether ThinMan went on vacation, and if
> so, when.  I never saw such an announcement, nor is such indicated
> on the web pages.  There was a time, hovever, when my mail was
> bouncing.

I looked my "reg" mail, where I keep acka mail received relating to
players leaving, joining, going on vacation, returning from vacation,
changing to/from non-voting status, and the like, when I first got
ThinMan's return from vacation message, and I found no notice of his
vacation.  This was all I had time to do earlier today.

Now that I have had more time, I searched through the ackanomic-digest
archives for July and couldn't find any notice of ThinMan ever going on
vacation.  

He went on vacation June 22nd and returned June 26th; I believe he has
not been on vacation since.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:19:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ambassador

The Ambassador nomination ended a little less than 3 days ago.  I
held it as long as legal hoping to avoid a minor thread split.

I was the only volunteer in the CFJ 439 FALSE thread, Voting Gnome and
myself were the only volunteers in the CFJ 439 TRUE thread.

I think CFJ 439 should be judged FALSE.  IAC, we will hold an election
in the TRUE thread.  (I only volunteered to make sure the office was
filled; I certainly don't mind doing it, but Voting Gnome wants to do
it, so vote for him (ironically, he cannot vote for himself) -- it also
seemed wrong to *not* volunteer in the other thread).  If CFJ
439 is ultimately judged FALSE, as I expect it to be, then there are
other ways that the game state can be changed to allow him to be 
Ambassador if he wants to be.

Let this e-mail serve as the announcement of the election, reply yto
vote.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:29:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 438 Verdict

CFJ 438 has been judged TRUE.

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

Call For Judgment 438
  Subject: Treasure
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 20, 1997, 10:38h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

If a Map Writer or Map Custodian believes the conditions of a Treasure Map
to be fulfilled, and declares the Map to be destroyed and the Treasure to
be found, and later on discovers that the conditions were not in fact
fulfilled, then the Treasure should be considered to not have been
found, nor the Treasure Map destroyed.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

I'm not sure whether this is covered by Rule 1217 or not.  It does not
state any truly rigorous game requirements that a Map's conditions be
satisfied validly; I don't believe that it is necessarily a Crime, for
instance, to mistakenly destroy a Treasure Map.  Since the language of
Treasure Maps is often not "legalese", it is left up to the Map Writer
or Custodian to determine whether the conditions have been met.  Can e
change eir mind?

mr cwm's Reasoning:

>From R1217:  Upon a player ... achieving the conditions for finding buriedTreasure as specified by a Treasure Map, it is a duty of the map writer or
a map custodian (if any exist) to make this fact, and the map, public
(once they become aware of the conditions being achieved, and the final act
that lead to the condition being achieved is publically knowable).  This
action destroys the map, and the player who achieved the condition
receives the Treasure ...

OK, so what destroys the map?  "This action."  What action?  "Mak(ing)
this fact, and the map, public."  What fact?  That of "a player ...
achieving the condition."

So if "a player ... achieving the condition" is not a fact (a
determination that can, ultimately, be made only by CFJ), what has been
made public is a lie and the map, which is not the action required to
cause the map to be destroyed and its treasure distributed.  Thus, the map
was not destroyed, nor the Treasure found, whatever we may have been lead
to believe.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:00:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser

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

This is done.  I am now auctioning it.  I also note that those
Otzma auctions are prolly complete.

Chief Cheese.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:05:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Machine (Rex Mundi)

Rex Mundi has found the Machine that goes *ping* in his house.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 01:30:56 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser

> > I am building a BWG Laser.  It will be done in a few days.
> 
> This is done.  I am now auctioning it.  I also note that those
> Otzma auctions are prolly complete.
> 
> Chief Cheese.

I bid 50 A$ for the BWG Laser.

Rex Mundi.

No, I don't _actually_ _have_ any money, but I do have a very good bank...

RexBank: the bank that likes to say "NO! NO! Don't fix tax loopholes!"

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:58:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 440 

ThinMan did not respond to CFJ 440 within the 3 day limit.  This
appears to present a bit of a sticky wicket in terms of the Praetor.
Normally, not responding to a CFJ causes it to be assigned to the
Preator, but the Preator not responding to a CFJ causes the Preator to
be impeached.  Rule 425 attempts to handle this situation, I was
suprised to find, but I'm not sure it works due to the precedence of
rule 212.  I generally have a very narrow definition of precedence
conflict, but here it seems clear; both rules say what happens upon
deadbeating by the Preator, so long as the Preator is in the set
"Any player".

It comes down to timing perhaps, does "immediately" in rule 425
occur before "then" in rule 212, ie, is "then" a timing word giving
enough time for the Preator to be impeached before the assignment of
the CFJ to the Preator as mandated by 212, thus allowing 425's conflicting
assignment to take place?  I think that's a bit of handwaving, personally,
but it would lead to the intuitive, common sense interpretation and what
was *intended* by the rules.  

The rules, however, only allow game custom and spirit of the game to
come into play when the rules are "silent, inconsistent, or unclear".
(They actually only allow game custom in interpretations (rule 101),
spirit of the game only comes in when rule 215 is invoked by a judge).
There is no game custom, nor are the rules silent or inconsistent on
the matter (a precedence conflict does not indicate inconsistency if
the rules provide an unambiguous resolution; the game custom clause
says "rules" (as a whole body), not the 'rules in question'.  One could
argue unclarity, perhaps; that is the handwaving I refer to above.  (The
fact that I write this long thing does not indicate unclarity in my
mind, although that argument *has* been used successfully -- I'm just 
pointing out the situation.

IAC, there are 3 possible outcomes:

1) The common sense outcome above, CFJ 440 is reassigned.
2) CFJ 440 is assigned to ThinMan immediately before he is impeached.
3) The CFJ is assigned to the Preator, who does not exist, thus the
game crashes (the rules mandate an impossible action).  I believe the
rules are clear for case 3, as discussed above.  (Crashed is a strong
word, though.  It appears that acka is multi-threaded (not in our normal
sense of thread split threads, but there is a CFJ 440 processing thread
that is independent of the YORL thread, for example).  If acka is in fact
single-threaded, then it did crash on this occurrance).  Given this, the
CFJ 440 processing thread crashes, and CFJ 440 is in limbo.

Like I said, I believe 3) is mandated and will play that thread, but will
let anyone who wants to make a case for another reading of the rules.  
The relevent passages are quoted below.

Clerk of the Courts
expecting 'c'mon, its obvious what happens' :)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 212:

> Any player who does not respond to selection in 3 days shall be considered
> a deadbeat and penalized 10 points, and deemed to have refused appointment;
> the CFJ shall then be assigned to the Praetor.

Rule 425:

> Should, however, [the Preator] ever become a deadbeat as a result of
> [a CFJ they we assigned normally], he is immediately removed from
> office [...] and the CFJ is reassigned as if he had actively declined.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:29:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440 

I wrote a bunch of gizz:

> IAC, there are 3 possible outcomes:
> 
> 1) The common sense outcome above, CFJ 440 is reassigned.
> 2) CFJ 440 is assigned to ThinMan immediately before he is impeached.
> 3) The CFJ is assigned to the Preator, who does not exist, 

Then I found this:

> III. If a judge or judge-designate should ever be declared a deadbeat,
> the CotC shall select the Praetor as the next Judge for the deadbeat's
> CFJ. If, however, the Praetor's seat is vacant, or the Praetor is
> ineligible to receive the CFJ in the first place [e.g., because they
> initiated it, or it is a CFCJ and the Praetor is the defendant], it
> shall be reassigned as if the deadbeat had actively declined judgment.

This would appear to turn case 3 into case 1 after all, via a roundabout
way.

Sorry for the BWG.

Malenkai
apparently ditzed-out

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440 

> ThinMan did not respond to CFJ 440 within the 3 day limit.  This
> appears to present a bit of a sticky wicket in terms of the Praetor.
> Normally, not responding to a CFJ causes it to be assigned to the
> Preator, but the Preator not responding to a CFJ causes the Preator to
> be impeached.  Rule 425 attempts to handle this situation, I was
> suprised to find, but I'm not sure it works due to the precedence of
> rule 212.  I generally have a very narrow definition of precedence
> conflict, but here it seems clear; both rules say what happens upon
> deadbeating by the Preator, so long as the Preator is in the set
> "Any player".

$#!*. I see; if section VI of Rule 425 said "This section takes
precedence over Rule 212," then this probably wouldn't be a problem.

A possible argument for the "commonsense" interpretation is that Rule
212 specifies the default situation (in that it refers to "any
player"), and thus permits Rule 425 (in this case) to specify
different results for other situations.

Another possible argument is that Rule 212 merely states that the
event "the CFJ is assigned to the Praetor" occurs, and then Rule 425
spells out what that event actually entails.

b

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:57:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440

> ThinMan did not respond to CFJ 440 within the 3 day limit.  This
> appears to present a bit of a sticky wicket in terms of the Praetor.

> Rule 212:
> 
> > Any player who does not respond to selection in 3 days shall be considered
> > a deadbeat and penalized 10 points, and deemed to have refused appointment;
> > the CFJ shall then be assigned to the Praetor.
> 
> Rule 425:
> 
> > Should, however, [the Preator] ever become a deadbeat as a result of
> > [a CFJ they we assigned normally], he is immediately removed from
> > office [...] and the CFJ is reassigned as if he had actively declined.

The section of R425 that Malenkai quoted above reads in full:

  The player who holds the Office of Praetor may be selected to judge CFJ's
  by the methods described in other rules.  Should this occur, he is not
  acting as the Praetor on this CFJ, and he is neither bound by the rules of
  the Office nor able to use the Praetor's powers on this CFJ.  Should,
  however, he ever become a deadbeat as a result of such a CFJ, he is
  immediately removed from office as described in the previous paragraph,
  and the CFJ is reassigned as if he had actively declined.

"he is neither bound by the rules of the Office nor able to use the
Praetor's Powers on this CFJ."  This sounds like a rule claiming
precedence, to me (though I prefer to write these more explicitly),
and Rule 212 is a rule involving the office of Praetor.

By this interpretation, "the obvious thing" happens -- the Praetor is
not bound to re-receive the CFJ by R212, and the CFJ is reassigned and
ThinMan loses the Praetor office.

In the (worst possible?) interpretation Malenkai proposed, that the CFJ
is assigned to the empty Praetor office, I don't believe this crashes
the game.  The CFJ is just legally lost by being assigned to nobody.
Since it's not assigned to a player, the rules regarding deadbeats never
take hold, since they only apply to players, and the CFJ is simply
never resolved.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:21:14 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: tattoo

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC987F.E6E706A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Jerome Herrman [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Thursday, July 24, 1997 4:10 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	acka: tattoo

Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Jerome Herrman
To:  'acka'
Subject:  acka: tattoo
Date: 1997-07-24 12:10
Priority: 3
Message ID: 2681751C0704D111948C0060976638FA
Conversation ID: acka: tattoo

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -----

I guess I won't be recommending Karma's tattoo services as I have yet to =
 =20
get mine done.  I have been in this tattoo parlor for 4 days now with no =
 =20
tattoos.

Techno

While an intelligent blind funny detective from another planet was with =
a
team of kangeroos, one cosmic Russian from Indiana stole all the air.
Your Tattoo is on its way, I just didn't 'spect you to leave me with the =
burden of description. I've been trying to think of what you would like =
and I started writing something and I asked myself "Is this Techno, Is =
this what he would like?" Wait ! I got it! This is off the top o' my =
head but I envision an anchor and a heart and "Mother Techno" written =
across it in cascading wavy text, the drinks are free here so you are =
probably pretty inebriated as I make this fine peel off tattoo, you may =
ask yourself tomorrow if you did the right thing, You may ask yourself =
how did you get here, you may say to yourself this isin't my beautiful =
tattoo, you may say to yourself this don't look like my beautiful wife,
- - Karma (geez the needle was a little rusty)=20

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC987F.E6E706A0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC987F.E6E706A0--

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:43:58 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 439 (Karma)

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9883.139FAAA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

- -----Original Message-----
From:	jordan james [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Monday, July 21, 1997 8:25 AM
To:	[email-masked]'
Subject:	RE: Acka: CFJ 439 (Karma)

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Sunday, July 20, 1997 10:08 PM
To:	[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:false

Statement:quoting from rule 401. (something ) is this excerpt=20

(x) Office Type  All offices are either Functional or Political. If the =
rules fail to specify the type of an office, that office is a Political =
Office. Vacancies in a particular Political office are filled by =
election for office (by the procedure in R 402), unless other rules =
specify otherwise. In the case of an optional Political office where a =
nomination did not produce any volunteers, the election process is =
aborted at that point.

This clearly states that any position Pertaining to "a seat" is either =
functional or political

The position of Ambasador is not an Ackanomic Office.

Voting Gnome's Reasoning: =20

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.

I accept!
- - Karma

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9883.139FAAA0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9883.139FAAA0--

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:37:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 439 Verdict

CFJ 439 has been judged FALSE

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

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.

Karma's Reasoning [apparently]:

quoting from rule 401. (something ) is this excerpt
(x) Office Type  All offices are either Functional or Political. If the rules 
fail to specify the type of an office, that office is a Political Office. 
Vacancies in a particular Political office are filled by election for office 
(by the procedure in R 402), unless other rules specify otherwise. In the 
case of an optional Political office where a nomination did not produce any 
volunteers, the election process is aborted at that point.

This clearly states that any position Pertaining to "a seat" is either 
functional or political

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:39:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 434 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 434 has been overturned to FALSE, with a 1 point penalty to the
original judge.

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

Call For Judgment 434
  Subject: Private E-mail
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Vynd (selected Jul 15, 1997, 20:21h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

If a CFCJ is made against the Mad Scientist alleging that e distributed a
Frankenstein Part through private email or by some other non-public means,
a Judge cannot necessary rule on it with finality.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

What this rests on is the privacy of the medium.  I feel that it is
impossible to legislate all possible non-public means of sharing
information.  Furthermore, for most such methods there is little or no
evidence that the sharing took place.  A private email message can always
be forwarded to the Judge, of course, but there is no assurance of
authenticity without a PGP signature, since such a document could
theoretically be forged.

In the specific case of Frankenstein Parts, it may seem evident that once
the final Blueprint can be consulted, it should be evident whether or not
the Part could have been knowable by the player without them having
received a private email from the Mad Scientist; but the possibility of a
lucky guess cannot be ruled out.

This verdict should also apply to judgements on other knowledge which is
forbidden to be distributed, such as the Truth of the Machine.  (And
possibly Church Policy, but that's probably another kettle of fish
entirely.)

Vynd's Reasoning:

I judge this to be TRUE.  Alfvaen's reasoning is quite sound, I think.

Malenkai's Appeal Reasoning:

As much as I'd like to see the verdict upheld, I do not think game custom
supports the verdict delivered.  I think that game custom is wrong, but
its here, and if it has changed, upholding this appeal will strengthen
that change.

CFJ 228 established that a Judge can use [what I call] "whim" in reaching
a decision.  I'm not saying that's the right word, and there may be
a better word, but in my mind CFJ 228 affirmed game custom that a Judge
can choose any of our 4 verdicts of TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDED, and INVALID,
as needed.

In the case of the specific statement brought by the initiator, and based
on the fact that CFJ 228 establised that there are is not a rigorous,
mechanical, non-human-decision involved judgement process, the Judge
can *always* say UNDECIDED or INVALID.  They can also say one of the
normal verdicts if they cannot *prove* or *disprove* the assertion
because the private e-mail evidence necessary is unavailable.  The acka
justice system is based on the burden of proof of the judge, and if,
for whatever reason, a judge cannot prove an asserion TRUE or FALSE,
they will have no problem delivering one of the other verdicts.

Its easy for the Court to uphold the appeal based on the word "necessary"
(which I believe should be "necessarily") in the statement; ie, the Judge
may be in Gaol, drunk, or there may be a rule that says all Judges may not
rule with finality (ie, a bug in the rules, or a weird change to the
rules because of a Frobnotzer, etc).  I would be disappointed if such
were the reasoning of any upholding of the appeal, and ask the Court to
examine the *intent* of the statement -- "Because of indeterminacy of
information or the Judgement process, a Judge sometimes cannot deliver
a verdict".  This statement is FALSE as Acka is currently played, unless
this CFJ is changing that custom.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court agrees that a Judge can always rule on a CFJ, and notes that
a verdict of UNDECIDED is an entirely appropriate verdict when
necessary information is impossible to obtain within the Rules. On
this specific issue the Court feels that nothing further needs to be
added. However, some of the statements made in the appeal deserve
further comment.

Malenkai's assessment of CFJ 228 is that this CFJ defined a game
custom that CFJ verdicts can be decided "at the judge's whim". Now,
note that this was not the statement under judgement. Although it
appears as an important part of the first judge's reasoning, and the
subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court of the time did not address it in
their final reasoning. The fact that it chose to uphold the original
verdict does not necessarily mean it agrees with everything said by
the original judge. Rather, it appears that the Court focused on the
assertion: "It is impossible to find a non-paradoxical interpretation
of CFJ 227, and the Rules and issues it entails, that would permit a
verdict of TRUE", and disagreement with this assertion was sufficient
grounds for upholding the verdict of FALSE on CFJ 228.  Granted, the
Court's silence would seem to imply tacit approval of the issue of
judgement by whim. Thus, this Court would like to take advantage of
this opportunity to address the issue further.

Returning judgements is one of the most important duties that
Ackanomic demands of its players. It is expected that a Judge will
make every reasonable effort to understand the Ruleset and identify
all the relevant issues in order to determine the proper Judgement.
And Rule 215 plainly states that expectation:

     All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect
     at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game
     state at that time.

In fact, one might even say that Rule 215 makes it impermissible to do
otherwise. Of course, the tricky part is determining what is and is
not "in accordance". Rules are written in English, not propositional
calculus, and judgements can not be proven to be correct in the way
that logical theorems can. Understanding the rules is a human
activity, not a mechanical one. It is impossible to require that all
CFJ verdicts returned must be "the right one." If there were a
decision procedure for testing a verdict for correctness, we would not
have a need for them in the first place.

Therefore, it becomes clear that, despite Rule 215, returning a
Judgement that is "wrong" is not impermissible, simply because it is
impossible to always know that a "wrong" verdict can be identified.
(Or, taking a non-Platonic viewpoint, that a "right" verdict even
exists at all.) From this plain observation, the Court must admit that
a judgement can be returned "at whim" and not be in violation of the
rules, and to this extent the Court can only agree with the statements
of CFJ 228.

However, the whole truth of the matter is that the expectation of
judges to return honest, logically satisfying verdicts simply cannot
be codified. In the final assessment, it stands outside of the rules,
and exists entirely in what we call the spirit of the game. Rule 215
does not capture that spirit so much as stand for it, and indicate its
existence. (This expectation is furthermore embodied by the Supreme
Court itself, which is charged with the task of legislating this need
for well-reasoned verdicts on a case-by-case basis - a job that it
takes with the utmost seriousness even as it recognizes that
infallibility is frequently not possible.) This spirit is what the
texts of CFJ 228 do not address.

In the previous paragraph the Court states that the expectation of
honest verdicts is wholly within the spirit of the game. This is
actually untrue, for it is also very much a game custom. If you look
at the history of CFJs in Ackanomic, one commonality that stands out
is the thoughtfulness and care that have been brought to them by their
various judges - judges that include so many different players. There
is no custom of returning judgements at whim in Ackanomic; if
anything, the truth is quite the opposite.

Penalty to Original Judge: 1 point.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #216
*******************************