Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #250
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Wednesday, August 13 1997      Volume 02 : Number 250

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:33:32 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Chuck S Smith)
Subject: Acka:  Oops!

I thought the Acka:  at the beginning of the subjects was automatic!  :-(

	--Whiz

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Oops!

> I thought the Acka:  at the beginning of the subjects was automatic!  :-(

No, it isn't. Although admittedly there's no reason why it couldn't
be. Or is there?

Has this issue been hashed out before? I seem to recall that there was
some support for not having majordomo do it automatically. Do people
want to try having it done automatically?

breadbox
still just an Acting Postmaster

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

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:12:15 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: HoE

On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> At 10:13 PM 8/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >I am nominating Mr. Nacho to the hall of elders, unless someone beat me 
> >to it, in which case I am seconding the nomination.
> 
> I second this.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

I believe this means Mr. Lunatic Fringe,previously known as Mr. Nacho,
previously known as snowgod, previosly known as frozenwaterdeity, three
time President of Ackanomic, (and campaign manager in the one election I
did win), first Ambassador, author of the largest number of proposals I
voted against, champion of Voting Gnomes in many nomics. Need I say that I
support this?

I support this.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:51:17 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Land Purchase

> It seems that my benighted Priest, Rex Mundi, has misread the Map of
> Ackanomic.  Or, rather, he read the graphics but not the text.  Since L5
is
> the location of Ace Rimmer's house, and Ace Rimmer is still a player,
> surely it could not have been bought by him.  Perhaps he misread the
label
> of kaa of land L3 or L1 instead.
> 
Yes, that's it... there was a smudge on my monitor, and I read L3 as L5
;-).

> Since specific labels on kaas of land are merely an artifact of the
> Map-Harfer, I am declaring in that capacity that Rex Mundi bought,
> and donated to the Church, kaa L3.
> 
That's what I _meant_ to say...

Rex Mundi, benighted Priest of Azpiazu.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:49:38 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Voting

I hereby change my status to voting.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:13:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2259-2262 results

> I'm assuming, from the previous quorum failure, that we consider the
> announcements of the various proposals to happen an infinitesimal amount of
> time apart, so that the quorum failure does not happen on all of the
> proposals announced here separately.

I believe that is how we've been doing it, but a compelling argument
can be made that we have been doing it wrong.  That argument is:

Rule 207 says, in part:

> If more than one Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially 
> reported at the same time, the scoring changes are applied in numerical 
> order of the Proposals, with an infinitesimal amount of time separating
> each application.

This only applies to the *scoring*, but I think that it has been incorrectly
generalized to apply to all effects.  Perhaps it *should* be applied to
most other effects by some other rule, but the quorum rule is clear,
non-silent, and non-inconsistent (meaning game custom does not apply):

> If the number of players who voted on a proposal is equal to or greater 
> than the number of abstaining Active players at the time the results are
> posted, the proposal meets quorum; otherwise it does not meet quorum. 

It seems to me that all proposals in the first batch fail due to quorum,
unless someone can find a rule that indicates otherwise.  As for the game
custom, I do not think it applies.  I will keep the game state based on
this assumption until shown otherwise.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:22:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Elders and stuff

1) I support Mr. Lunatic Fringe into the Hall of Elders.  I count 8 total
nominations so far (the difference in names doesn't matter, as
far as I can tell).

2) The CoMD is defunct, as far as I can tell.

3) I don't believe any attempt to change from non-voting to
voting will have any effect (or has had any effect) until 8/14 @ 23:54,
so I have Alfvaen, Malenkai, and Red Barn as the only active players as
of the time of this post.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:32:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaoler

E-mail me if you wish to be gaoler, and you are eligible.  The
following offices remain open, and can be claimed when people
become voting:

Inventor 
Runemaker (optional)
Registrar (prez should start a nomination)

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

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:32:09 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders and stuff

[snip]
> 3) I don't believe any attempt to change from non-voting to
> voting will have any effect (or has had any effect) until 8/14 @ 23:54,
> so I have Alfvaen, Malenkai, and Red Barn as the only active players as
> of the time of this post.
> 
Hmm. This 12 minutes after I try to change my status... It's a conspiracy,
I tell you!

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:01:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 446 Verdict

CFJ 446 has been judged FALSE.

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

Call For Judgment 446
  Subject: Actions
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Dread Pirate Roberts (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (assigned Aug 09, 1997, 19:14h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The actions attempted by Guy Fawkes on July 31st by a message to
[email-masked](including a transfer of money to GF Mini-storage
and GF Mini-storage's purchase of a Secret Laboratory)did not succeed.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

I'm still not quite convinced, but breadbox's reasoning for this
(paraphrased, and possibly misconstrued...he may append Bronze Torch
reasoning for himself if he thinks I've missed something important...:-)
is that the Postal Code amendments to add [email-masked] to the
list of public forums had not yet taken effect when Guy Fawkes sent his
message, and that because email was boucing to Chaos(a non-vacationing
player), messages posted there could not be considered to be public
messages.

/dev/joe's announcement of the Postal Code change was at 14:01 Ackatime,
July 29th; Guy Fawkes' attempted actions were performed at 14:44 Ackatime
July 31st, just under one day before the Postal Code changes would have
taken effect.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The facts are not in dispute here.  This boils down to the fact that a
message attempting to perform actions, with "Acka:" in the subject line,
was sent to a mailing list which was not designated a public forum in the
postal code.  The following facts have also been stated, and there is
no reason, in my judgement, to believe these statements are untrue (and
I paraphrase): 'all active players are subscribed [and were at the time
in question] to [email-masked]', and 'the message in question
bounced when sent to Chaos [an active player]'.

The relevent regulation comes from rule 422:
 
> A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to all 
> non-vacationing Players or it is sent to any mailing list indicated as
> a public forum in the Postal Code, and any actions performed in the
> message obey all restrictions in the Postal Code for that list, and 
> the subject line contains either "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:".

Further, it simply hinges on the rendering of "distributed" in the 
above passage.  Does distributed mean "sent", or "sent and received".
If the former, the facts indicated a verdict of FALSE, otherwise they
indicated a verdict of TRUE.  I will not judge UNDECIDED or INVALID
(undecidable), as I judge our knowledge of the facts to be good
enough.

Distribute, from Webster's 9th Collegiate:

"to give out or deliver esp. to members of a group <~ newspapers> 
<~ leaflets> <~ food to the needy>".

Not alot of help, except that it seems reasonable to interpret 'to
distribute' with or without implying actual recept on the part of the
distributee.  Ie, 'leaflets were distributed to everyone at the rally'.
Does that mean everyone at the rally *received* a leaflet.  If I was 
against the cause, and refused or dropped my leaflet, is the statement
false?  Should it be: 'leaflets were distributed to everyone at the 
rally, except those who dropped them, refused them, or otherwise were
unable to receive them'?  Possibly, but we don't communicate like that;
the qualifiers in the above are implicit in general English language
usage.  In other words, I find either reading *reasonable*.  If we
intended to convey that level of precision, or wanted a stronger 
statement, we might say: 'everyone at the rally received the leaflet'.
This still leaves some doubt, but to the level of strictness to which I
read acka rules, this would be tight enough (ie, if 'distributed' were 
replaced with 'received' in the passage in question).  (I also acknowledge
a dissonance in construction between 'everyone' in the two different
contexts, but each reading remains *reasonable*).

I also looked up 'delivered', a component of the above definition, and
just as relevent: "to take and hand over to or leave for another:
CONVEY <~ a package>".  'The package was delivered to Jones, 123 Oak
Street'.  Did Jones receive it?  Not necessarily.  Again, the same 
sort of thing.

I find either interpretation is reasonable, and that the rendering of
"distributed" is unclear enough to invoke rule 215:

> 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. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the 
> statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently
> existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision. 

There is no game custom that I know of.  Since rule 422 was amended to its
current form, no message, as far as I am aware, has been attempted to
all active players without using postal code fora.

It comes down to spirit of the game then.  I find that it is in the spirit
of the game that the action succeeded.  Without clear rule of law, it
is a bit picayune to say an action fails because it was posted to the
wrong list, when the fact of the matter is that had it been posted to
[email-masked], the same exact thing would have happened,
including the bounce at Chaos' account, and for all intents and purposes,
the lists were identical.  I note that this ruling would *not* have been
possible, had rule 422 not allowed for the possibility of an alternative
distribution method besides the postal code fora, or had 'distributed'
been replaced with 'received'.

I thus judge the action succeeded, and return a verdict of FALSE on
the statement I was asked to judge.

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

Date: 13 Aug 1997 20:14:52 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Backa

I once again have access.  Much sooner than expected :)

So, I take myself off of vacation, and I nominate myself for the office
of Inventor.

I also support the nomination for MLF.  He will be dearly missed.

GF

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:46:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 444 (Supreme Court)

I am using my privilege as Praetor to send this to the Supreme Court.
This is the matter of SR 102.  Search for 'xyzzy' to skip the BWG :)

I am going to stand on GF's soapbox and make a speech about conflict
of interest.  I have made a similar speech in the past, but I feel like
doing it again:

I am an interested party in this CFJ.  Heck, I performed the actions
being judged.  But who isn't an interested party in any CFJ?  A
certain verdict on this CFJ could make me a dictator.  Wouldn't other
judges and courts be interested parties too, as they could become 
dictatees?  The same can be said of a CFJ that alleges that 10 points
were not scored by player X when previously thought scored.  Doesn't 
*everyone* with a score have an interest in the outcome?  We all lose 
or gain 10 points relative to player X.  Why is it perceived by society
that player X has a CoI as judge of that CFJ.  Why would it be perceived
that I have a CoI on this one, and the Supreme Court does not?  Why is
it implicitly perceived that I and player X have less objectivity under
some circumstances.

I hate turning down CFJs because of CoI.  I'd rather prove my objectivity
by delivering the correct verdict regardless of how large the *perceived*
CoI is.  I had a CoI on the one I just delivered [446], and probably have
on every single one I have *ever* delivered, as each one has changed my
relative standing in the game.  I was going to just judge this
one anyway, as all the legal replacement justices have the same level of
*perceived* CoI, until GF came back as the rightful justice.  Is he
less interested, or more objective, than me?  No offense, but probably
not.  These quantities are equal, for all practical purposes, I would
say.  Why then, the perceived CoI?  Perhaps its a self-satisifying thing,
people feel good when they decline something that appears to be a CoI.
I don't mean that in a bad way, just hacking around for an explanation.
Perhaps people feel better if *others* judge them to have won, even if
the objective facts would allow the winner to have done so as well.
I dunno.  This is one of my pet ethics questions in RL.  Thanks for your
time.  BTW, I have not even begun to examine how I think this CFJ should
be judged. 
     
Clerk of the Courts
xyzzy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 444
  Subject: Voting in Favor
Initiator: Vynd
    Judge: two-star (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (declined)
3rd Judge: Supreme Court (assigned Aug 13, 1997, 21:46h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Senate did not vote in favor of the Senate resolution
provisonaly entitled "Concerning the Senate".

Vynd's Reasoning:

> Pursuant to rule 1001 ("Institutions") I announce the voting results
> of the SR: "Concerning the Senate".  Said SR is ACCEPTED, 1 vote for.
>
> [From section 3: "Results may be announced before the alloted time
> ends, in which case the voting period is over when those results are
> announced."  Note that the announcer is nowhere required to be a
> member of the institution.]
>
> Malenkai

I'd quote the other messages he sent, but I'm not up to the cutting and
pasting.  Essentially, Malenkai exercised his privilige as Speaker to
submit a senate resolution, voted on it as proconsul (since the Senate was
in a 0-0 tie) and then announced the vote as above.

This is mostly correct, everything except the accepted part.  The
Pro-Consul can vote whenever there is a tie, not jsut when all Senators
ahve voted and there is a tie.  It is correct that anyone is allowed to
announce the results of the vote, and thereby end the voting period, even
if the vote has not been truly completed.  However...

Rule 1001 section 2a says:

"...An Institution votes "in favor" of something or "in support of an
action" when a simple majority of it's members vote "in favor" or "in
support."

Rule 411.1 3rd paragraph says:

"If the Senate votes in favor of accepting a resolution then immediately
after the results of the vote are publicly announced..." yadda yadda
yadda.

1 of 5 does not constitue a majority.  Thus the Senate did not vote in
favor of the resolution, and since it's voting period ended without the
Senate voting in favor, it didn't pass.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:47:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Backa

> So, I take myself off of vacation, and I nominate myself for the office
> of Inventor.

GF is now Inventor.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:34:01 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Oops!

> > I thought the Acka:  at the beginning of the subjects was automatic!  :-(

> No, it isn't. Although admittedly there's no reason why it couldn't
> be. Or is there?

> Has this issue been hashed out before? I seem to recall that there was
> some support for not having majordomo do it automatically. Do people
> want to try having it done automatically?

I would like to see it.  The reason for the Acka: prefix is so that people
can easily categorize their Ackanomic email separately from other stuff,
perhaps even automatically.  Apart from that, the requirement to put it in
there and the fact of having to treat as fictitious any message that
doesn't have it makes it a nuisance, especially for new players.

The point has been raised that some people don't like majordomo messing
with their headers, with the "Falafel Fallen Off" treasure as an example.
If anyone can think of a compelling reason why they would want email that
does not contain "Acka:" to be posted to the official lists, a specific
as opposed to general case, I'd like to hear it.  I can't think of one
offhand.  (If you like, maybe acka-priv could be set up to not put in the
prefix, if you really wanted it to not happen.)

Oh, yeah, breadbox, I wonder if it's necessary to have majordomo set the
"sender" lines?  When I read my email in Eudora(which is not frequently),
the mailbox window lists everything as coming from
"[email-masked]", as opposed to, say, "Malenkai".  The fact that
this wasn't happening before leads me to believe that it's possible to
configure it otherwise, but this might have changed between versions or
something.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Midnight Oil:Red Sails In The Sunset
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
Linda Lovelace and Jim Henson in: I'VE GOT A FROG IN MY THROAT.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:13:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Offices

Well, it looks like Guy Fawkes has successfully become the Inventor, by
acclamation.  Congratulations.  :-)  I'm not sure whether this happens
until Malenkai announces it, or maybe me, I'm not sure.  (I guess it'd be
Count Tabula for a Political Office...)

I am announcing the beginning of a Nomination for Registrar.  (I guess that
Customs Officer is an obsolete office, or something...?)  Oh, yeah, and the
Church of the Markovian Dream is sans a founder.  The Church of Azpiazu
would be glad to welcome any of its wayward brethren into its fold.
(Also...what precisely happened to his Wool Sweater?  Since it was mimsy,
it didn't stay with him...is it Somewhere Else?  The Treasury?)

I do believe that I am the Promoter and Malenkai the Tabulator.  Another
day, to give breadbox some lead time to send in his nomination after he
may become voting, and I'll announce my intentions to resign as Promoter.
(Though I am not announcing my intentions to resign _yet_.)

I _am_ announcing my intention to resign as Map-Harfer, since two-star did
vote on the quorum-failing Proposals and thus is also still active, and
he's the one who expressed anticipated and belated interest in the Office.
A Nomination for that Office begins now.

Since nobody else has volunteered, I am volunteering for and appointing
myself to the Office of Web-Harfer.  _Anyone_ who has the capacity for
(additional)Web-Harfing should contact me so that I can properly apportion
the pages I can't host myself, either here or on Geocities.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Ice T:New Jack Hustler
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
Clocks don't bring tomorrow--knives don't bring good news

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:15:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders and stuff

> 3) I don't believe any attempt to change from non-voting to
> voting will have any effect (or has had any effect) until 8/14 @ 23:54,
> so I have Alfvaen, Malenkai, and Red Barn as the only active players as
> of the time of this post.

As I said, I think two-star made it through the first(wave of)quorum
failure, and I don't think the second set of proposals failed since 2/3 of
active players voted on them.  And, of course, Guy Fawkes is back now...
Gee, that "Active Players To Take Over The World" mailing list is going to
get unwieldy soon.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Tom Cochrane:Life Is A Highway
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
Deceive boys with toys, but men with oaths.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:06:50 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: status

I am changing my status to voting, I guess. *sigh*
**two-star
Ah wuz robbed ;)

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:18:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 446 Verdict

> CFJ 446 has been judged FALSE.
[reasoning deleted]

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant.  :-)  I'm glad that I was harfing
the more complex thread all this time, in which Guy Fawkes just became
solvent last night when I zombified Mr. Lunatic Fringe.  Although I'm still
annoyed at having to keep track of two different Spell Books of Chorg with
two different numbers of pages.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Tom Cochrane:Life Is A Highway
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
No wanna work.  Wanna bang on keyboard.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:15:00 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders and stuff

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > 3) I don't believe any attempt to change from non-voting to
> > voting will have any effect (or has had any effect) until 8/14 @ 23:54,
> > so I have Alfvaen, Malenkai, and Red Barn as the only active players as
> > of the time of this post.
> 
> As I said, I think two-star made it through the first(wave of)quorum
> failure, and I don't think the second set of proposals failed since 2/3 of
> active players voted on them.  And, of course, Guy Fawkes is back now...
> Gee, that "Active Players To Take Over The World" mailing list is going to
> get unwieldy soon.
>

In the thread, if such exists, where only p2259 failed quorum, I am the 
inventor. Obviously Malenkai isn't playing that thread. Looking at the 
rules, I think he has a point, although if I had figured it out more 
quickly, I would have volunteered for inventor again. Oh well.
**two-star

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:29:40 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 444 (Supreme Court)

> I am an interested party in this CFJ.  Heck, I performed the actions
> being judged.  But who isn't an interested party in any CFJ?  A
> certain verdict on this CFJ could make me a dictator.  Wouldn't other
> judges and courts be interested parties too, as they could become 
> dictatees?  The same can be said of a CFJ that alleges that 10 points
> were not scored by player X when previously thought scored.  Doesn't 
> *everyone* with a score have an interest in the outcome?  We all lose 
> or gain 10 points relative to player X.  Why is it perceived by society
> that player X has a CoI as judge of that CFJ.  Why would it be perceived
> that I have a CoI on this one, and the Supreme Court does not?  Why is
> it implicitly perceived that I and player X have less objectivity under
> some circumstances.

Here's my take on it:

When I rejected the "Azpiazu" CFJ, in which /dev/joe disputed the fact that
the Blueprint-under-Creation for Azpiazu had been completed, it was not
because I felt a Conflict of Interest in the circumstances.  Rather, it was
because I had already made a ruling on the circumstance, when I posted what
I believed to be a finished Blueprint.  Being asked to judge whether or not
my actions were correct seemed, to me, foolish.  It was like I'd delivered
judgement on the CFJ and then it was appealed to me.  Would my verdict be
any different the second time?

Similarly, had the one Malenkai just delivered the verdict on(446?)been
passed to breadbox, or to me(as a theoretical case; as the initiator, I
wouldn't have got it), I would have felt it right for him, or me, to
decline, as already having made decisions on the matter.  The ideal judge,
to me, is one who hasn't already made a decision about the results of the
CFJ before it was assigned.

This is not to say that some interested parties can't examine their own
reasoning ruthless under the light of the Rules and determine whether or
not they were right.  But I'd appeal a decision that was the same as the
original decision, _because_ I don't know if they did so.  (It may be
possible to tell from the reasoning, but if it's the same reasoning they
used before the CFJ, and I didn't agree with it then...)

So, since Malenkai spent his own time examining the issue behind this
particular CFJ before even performing the actions that inspired it.
It seems clear what his opinion on the matter is.  It's entirely possible
that he _could_ judge it impartially.  If anyone could, it'd probably be
Malenkai.  But I think the matter will be settled faster if it goes to the
Supreme Court, because there won't be that extra element of doubt.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Colin James:5 Long Years
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
I laughed, I cried, it was a Mecca of emotion.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:30:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: status

> I am changing my status to voting, I guess. *sigh*

This doesn't work because you're still Active.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Colin James:5 Long Years
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
Tonight's the night--sleep in a eucalyptus tree!

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:34:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders and stuff

> In the thread, if such exists, where only p2259 failed quorum, I am the 
> inventor. Obviously Malenkai isn't playing that thread. Looking at the 
> rules, I think he has a point, although if I had figured it out more 
> quickly, I would have volunteered for inventor again. Oh well.

Even if all the proposals whose results were released with P2259 failed
quorum, I think that the non-voting player changes would have occurred in
the 16 minutes before the release of the next batch of voting results.
Thus, the second batch would not have the previous full list of Active
players, but only you, me, and Malenkai; mr cwm and Guy Fawkes had already
gone on Vacation, so I guess they miss the quorum effects like all the
other vacationing players would.

If you sent in a nomination for Inventor, then you should be Inventor,
because you did not become non-voting.  I believe some CFJ's are in order
on this issue.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Joe Walsh:Ordinary Average Guy
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
Maybe it's just the _idea_ of an inflatable rubber starship that bothers me.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:32:33 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: proposal reporting timing

Hmm:

from Rule 408:

"The Duties of the Tabulator are: 
[snip]
(c)to report the acceptance or rejection of proposals, in the time order
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 in which their voting periods ended; the time of these reports is 
deemed to be the time indicated by the message's initial timestamp."

Now, as I see it, this means on of two things:

1) A tabulator sending in more than one proposal result at a time is 
committing Malpractice, since there is no definite order, or,

2) We have a game custom that there is an infinitessimal amount of time 
between the reporting of each proposal reported in a given message.

**two-star

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:36:59 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: my bad.

Oops. I had assumed that the reporting on p2259-2275 was in one batch 
since I coudn't think of any other reason why the things that were 
happening were happening.

**two-star

very confused.
Why are the things that are happening happening?

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:49:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders and stuff

> If you sent in a nomination for Inventor, then you should be Inventor,
> because you did not become non-voting.  I believe some CFJ's are in order
> on this issue.

Did I screw this up?  Can we settle this without a CFJ?  If two-star
never became non-active, then e is Inventor.  Have we established that
e never became non-active?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:56:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: proposal reporting timing

> "The Duties of the Tabulator are:
> [snip]
> (c)to report the acceptance or rejection of proposals, in the time order
>                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  in which their voting periods ended; the time of these reports is
> deemed to be the time indicated by the message's initial timestamp."
> 
> Now, as I see it, this means on of two things:
> 
> 1) A tabulator sending in more than one proposal result at a time is
> committing Malpractice, since there is no definite order, or,

If I comitted malpractice, sorry, but it still happens the way I
did it, since malpractice still happens.  (I did it that way because
that is how Chaos sent them to me).

> 2) We have a game custom that there is an infinitessimal amount of time
> between the reporting of each proposal reported in a given message.

There may be game custom for this in general, and it is definately 
how it works for scoring, but even if there is general game custom,
the quorum rule is an exception, IMO.

Just because "i'm playing that thread" does not mean it is right.  I,
however, like to choose a thread that seems right and play it, and if
anyone disagrees strongly enough, they have the opportunity to CFJ.  I
think this is better than just festering on without a thread chosen.
Sometimes the 'right' thread happens by consensus this way, and sometimes
a CFJ is needed.  I do not really like CFJs 'just to make sure'; CFJs 
should be generated if you disagree, or have a good case, or find the 
matter particularity interesting, IMO.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:09:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders and stuff

> > If you sent in a nomination for Inventor, then you should be Inventor,
> > because you did not become non-voting.  I believe some CFJ's are in order
> > on this issue.

> Did I screw this up?  Can we settle this without a CFJ?  If two-star
> never became non-active, then e is Inventor.  Have we established that
> e never became non-active?

Oops.  I just submitted this as a CFJ...if you agree with the reasoning of
it, then I'll retract it, no problem.

I missed him the first time through as well.  :-)  I spent a fair bit of
time harfing the proposal results a couple of nights ago.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Roy Orbison:Dream Baby
Current Book--Steven Brust & Megan Lindholm:The Gypsy
Separate the men from the toys

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:15:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 448 (Vynd)

Vynd has been selected.

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

Call For Judgment 448
  Subject: Quorum
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Vynd (selected Aug 13, 1997, 23:15h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Proposals 2260 through 2262 did not fail due to lack of quorum.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

I quote here Malenkai's posted reasoning, for easy reference by the Judge.

"Rule 207 says, in part:

"> If more than one Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially
"> reported at the same time, the scoring changes are applied in numerical
"> order of the Proposals, with an infinitesimal amount of time separating
"> each application.

"This only applies to the *scoring*, but I think that it has been incorrectly
"generalized to apply to all effects.  Perhaps it *should* be applied to
"most other effects by some other rule, but the quorum rule is clear,
"non-silent, and non-inconsistent (meaning game custom does not apply):

"> If the number of players who voted on a proposal is equal to or greater
"> than the number of abstaining Active players at the time the results are
"> posted, the proposal meets quorum; otherwise it does not meet quorum.

"It seems to me that all proposals in the first batch fail due to quorum,
"unless someone can find a rule that indicates otherwise.  As for the game
"custom, I do not think it applies.  I will keep the game state based on
"this assumption until shown otherwise.

Let's see if I can throw in some other reasoning here:

What happens when several Proposals are accepted sequentially?
Let's say that Proposal 5992 amends Rule 1000 by changing "Alfvaen is
the owner of Beldin's Pants" to "Alfvaen is the winner of the Cycle",
and Proposal 5993 amends Rule 1000 by changing every occurrence of
"Cycle" to "Game".  If the results on Proposal 5992 and Proposal 5993
were released simultaneously, what would the effect be on Rule 1000?
Obviously, it would be that the Rule would end up containing the sentence
"Alfvaen is the winner of the Game".  Why?  Because the effects of Proposal
5992 occurred every-so-slightly before Proposal 5993.

Now what would happen if Proposal 5994 was "{{All players that did not vote
on this Proposal become non-voting.}}"  What would happen to the voting
results of Proposal 5995, distributed simultaneously by the Tabulator?  I
would contend that the effects of the first Proposal would be applied
first, and this could affect the voting results of Proposal 5995.

I feel that this reasoning may be bolstered by Rule 104.  R104 states that
"If the proposal consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as changes
to the rules, then those effects shall be applied, one at a time, in the
order in which they appear in the proposal."  Obviously there is an
infinitesimal time difference between the different sections of a Proposal,
and this suggests that there must also be a time difference between two
separate Proposals taking effect, even if their voting results are
supposedly distributed simultaneously.

Now this(as Malenkai would doubtless point out)doesn't address the fact
that Rule 107 does state that quorum is determined "at the time the results
are posted".  Okay, let's examine this.

Let's say that I post something that states "The Church of Azpiazu
transfers A$61 to me.  I then create a trinket worth A$500 called
Montezuma's Revenge."  (Trinket description elided for the sake of public
decency.)  Now, do these actions occur simultaneously?  No, they do not.
Obviously the first one must occur first, because the second action would
fail otherwise(I have A$486 right now, you see).  So if a single public
message contains a series of different actions, then obviously they must
happen sequentially, with an infinitesimal amount of time between them.

Now what happens when the Tabulator posts a message containing the voting
results for two Proposals?  What technically happens, from Rule 104, is the
following:  "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."

I conclude from this, therefore, that posting the votes cast on a proposal
is a public action.  Posting the votes cast on TWO proposals is TWO public
actions.  And, like any public message containing a multiple number of
actions, these actions occur sequentially, with an infinitesimal amount of
time between them.

So it may seem that the voting results for P2259-2262 were released
simultaneously, but they were, in fact, released with an infinitesimal
amount of time between each one.  Just enough for quorum failure to occur
_after_ P2259's voting results were determined and _before_ P2260's voting
results were determined.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: HoE

On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, **Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> I am nominating Mr. Nacho to the hall of elders, unless someone beat me 
> to it, in which case I am seconding the nomination.
> 
> **two-star
> 
> Damn, but that hall of elders is getting awfully crowded lately.
> 

Good bye Mr. Snow Nacho!  We'll miss you!  Sorry if the whole ruthless
power grab stuff bothered you, I'll see about getting a statue errected in
your honor, if it helps.  I will also second this nomination, if
non-voting players can do that kind of stuff...

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:35:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hall of Elders

On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > I nominate Mr. Lunatic Fringe to the hall of elders, I nominate Mr. Nacho to
> > the hall of elders, and I nominate snowgod to the hall of elders.
> > 
> > ALSO I second Mr. Lunatic Fringe to the hall of elders, I second Mr. Nacho
> > to the hall of elders, and I second snowgod to the hall of elders.
> > 
> > That should cover any contingency, I believe. :)
> 
> Okay, let's get organized here. Alfvaen nominated Mr. Lunatic Fringe
> by his current name, and Robert Sevin has seconded it by his current
> name.
> 
> I also second Mr. Lunatic Fringe's ensconcement in the Hall of
> Elders. That makes three.
> 
> breadbox

I'll second this as well, or fourth it.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:32:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 448 (Vynd)

> Call For Judgment 448
>   Subject: Quorum
> Initiator: Alfvaen
>     Judge: Vynd (selected Aug 13, 1997, 23:15h EDT)

This is wrong.  Malenkai and two-star are the only eligible judges.
I selected me randomly.  I was just writing reasoning as to why it
should be judged a certain way.  One can always appeal :)

Malenkai
ditzed clerk of the courts

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #250
*******************************