Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #255
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Saturday, August 16 1997       Volume 02 : Number 255

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 10:49:42 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Contract

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Aaron V. Humphrey [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, August 16, 1997 2:19 AM
To:	Ackanomic
Subject:	Acka: Contract

As per the terms of the Beldin's Tailor Contract I created a while back, I
am giving Karma A$25 for having changed "loses" to "gains".  I am then
destroying the Contract.
- - Karma sez Wow! I like Being Beldin's Tailor! Any more contracts?
(Beldin's Tailor)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Band:Up On Cripple Creek
Current Book--John A. Williams:Mothersill And The Foxes
I am you, and you are me, and we are all together in a Yellow Submarine.

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 10:49:43 -0400
From: [email-masked] (Chuck S Smith)
Subject: Re: Acka: Politeness Moon

On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 08:18:40 -0400 Malenkai <[email-masked]> writes:
>> A Politeness Moon has been called against Karma for the content
>> requoted below.  The vaid responses are:
>
>This is over.  It was voted not polite by a 5-1 vote.  Ironically,
>the one player who voted polite (Whiz), was the player to whom the
>message was directed.
>
>Malenkai
>Count Tabula
>
I guess I'm not as easily offended as the others on this list.  ;-)  HEY,
I WAS JUST KIDDING!  Don't hurt me!  :-)

	--Cheez-Whiz,
	Chuck

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 10:53:57 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Active Players

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, August 16, 1997 8:41 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Acka: Active Players

I have the following as the list of active players:

breadbox
Rex Mundi
/dev/joe
Vynd
Malenkai
Alfvaen
two-star
Red Barn
mr cwm
Guy Fawkes

Karma sez'- I announced my status change to voting as soon as it was 
posted, if it was missed I once again declare I change my status from non 
voting to voting

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 10:56:53 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Rules

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, August 16, 1997 8:50 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Acka: Rules

Also, it seems that Whiz has no access to the rules (or the web).
Rather than mail 500K of rules, does someone have a better idea.
Of course, if there is 500K of content, we have little choice except
to repeal alot of the gizz (e.g. Synod ;-)).

Malenkai
Karma sez-Mr Lunatic Finger the nicest player I've known informed me he 
provided a list for whiz while he was still acting mentor, before he 
*sniff* abandoned us

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:02:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Active Players

> Karma sez'- I announced my status change to voting as soon as it was
> posted, if it was missed I once again declare I change my status from non
> voting to voting

I still have EXTREME difficulty reading your e-mail.  If you are gonna
change the game state in those unreadable posts, we may have a problem.
I noticed that you did make one post to the list with no gizz.

Please take the time to examine what you did on that one, and then take
the time to apply it to all of your mail to this list.

Thank you
Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:07:42 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Politeness Moon

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Chuck S Smith [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, August 16, 1997 10:50 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: Acka: Politeness Moon

>This is over.  It was voted not polite by a 5-1 vote.  Ironically,
>the one player who voted polite (Whiz), was the player to whom the
>message was directed.

Karma sez'- Yes! How Ironic!
>
>Malenkai
>Count Tabula
>
I guess I'm not as easily offended as the others on this list.
Karma sez- Yeah I guess your skin is a little thicker than most!:)

Karma asks- How come the results weren't posted pubically as usual?
	--Cheez-Whiz,
	Chuck

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:47:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 448 Verdict

CFJ 448 has been judged FALSE.

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

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

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.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I still agree with my original reasoning, convienently quoted above by
the initiator.  I also agree with all of the initiator's reasoning,
up until the last sentence of it, where he appears to use a series of
correct points to draw an incorrect conclusion.  For the most part,
the initiator's correct diagnosis of the rules and extant game custom
in his reasoning is not mutually exclusive with the result that the 
proposals in question did not meet quorum (whether they failed by
reason of quorum, the actual question in the CFJ, is another matter,
but establishing whether they met quorum is the first step).

The quorum rule (107) is clear:

> 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 says, "at the time the results are posted".  It does not say, 'at the
time the proposals are applied to the rules', or 'scored', or 'at the time
the Tabulator is deemed to have publically reported them or they are
publically knowable' or 'the act of reporting them occured'.  The last
ones may seem a bit too much to swallow, but they are not mutually
exclusive.  The concept of publically knowable is a game custom concept,
for the most part, and the quorum rule makes an exception.  Moreover, the
results in a single post really are all publically knowable at the time
of the post anyway, and actions can occur at different times from posts,
as the initiator has made clear in his examples.

The verb 'to post' is clear; it means to send an e-mail to a public forum.
It is not possible for different actions in a single e-mail to be posted
at different times (even though they may *occur* at different times), the
time of the entire post is the time it hits the list server.  (One could
argue that the bytes at the beginning of the e-mail were posted before
the bytes at the end of the e-mail!  This argument is too ridiculous to
pursue further; suffice it to say that it cannot even be proven to be true).

Lets assume there was a rule which said (and the initiator's argument
basically says, and I agree, that there is game custom that says this):

The second thru final actions in a single post are deemed to occur 1 
millisecond after the action which preceeded it in that post.

What happens there are 10 active players, and exactly 1 player votes 
YES on proposals 1 and 2, and the results of 1 and 2 are reported in the
same post (and for the sake of simplicity, that one player is the player
reporting the results ;-) -- the argument still holds, though)?  Rule
104 says:

> The proposal is then accepted if a quorum has been achieved and the
> required number of YES votes were cast on the proposal.

Now, the voting is not deemed to have happened at the time the results
are posted, or at the time they take effect; it happens throught the
voting period.  Now, back to the definition of quorum, which rule 104
instructs us to check as well (sorry):

> 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.

So, proposal 1 is processed:  The required number of YES votes were cast,
but it does not meet quorum.  OK fine.  Everyone who did not vote becomes
non-active, leaving 1 player active.

Now, one millisecond later, proposal 2 is processed.  The required number
of YES votes were cast, and rule 104 instructs [us] to check quorum.  The
definition of quorum tells [us] to look at the game state *at the time the
proposal was posted*, not now.  At that time, there were 10 active players,
therefore it fails due to quorum.  This is easier to see if 1 millisecond
is replaced with 10 years in the above example; all of the initiator's
reasoning holds, but [we] are instructed, in this specific case, to examine
the game state as it was in the past, and to apply that result to the
present.

In the last paragraph of the initiator's reasoning, he tries to draw a
conclusion based on when the proposals are "released".  This is an 
incorrect conclusion.  Had the quorum rule said "released, applied, or
the action of, etc", it would hold, but it says "posted".  A fine but
important distinction, and the key to the CFJ.  I note that the Tabulator
rule tries to prevent this problem by instructing the Tabulator to put
each result in a seperate post (or 'in "messages" with different 
timestamps').  (The fact that the Tabulator performed these duties 
incorrectly is malpractice, but does not change the fact that it happened
the way it did.)

I hope I have made it clear how I arrived at my conclusion, and why it is
the correct conclusion, and why several proposals in the same post who
have less than 50% voting response on them all do not achieve quorum.
Note that rule 215 does not apply, as the "clear, silent, inconsistent"
test fails.  [don't laugh, "clear" neq "clear"].

Now, there is a bit of uglyness to examine.  How long does a bit of acka
code, if you will, take to execute?  In the example presented above,
you may have noticed a bit of handwaving at the processing of proposal
1.  After it is determined that proposal 1 failed quorum, the players
who did not vote become non-active.  When does *this* occur?  Does all
the work of the game state processing proposal 1 happen simultaneously,
or is there an iota of time for each "thing" or "step" that goes on, as
described by the rules.  It matters -- here's why.  If there is no iota
of time, then these players become inactive *at the time of the post*! 
(because proposal 1 happened to be processed at that time).  This does
not invalidate my above argument, it is just another wrinkle.  To seperate
them, assume there was a proposal 0 in the above example where all 10 
players voted; what I am talking about now would have no bearing.

This no-iota interpretation leads to a paradox though, in this case,
because we are saying that there are both 10 and 1 active players at the
time of the post, and thus cannot determine quorum on proposal 1.  This
would be a problem in the case that *only* proposal 1's results were 
posted, it really has nothing to do with the fact that multiple proposal
results were included in the same post, but the iota/non-iota issue *is*
germaine to the issue at hand.

Game custom has established that a non-paradoxical interpretation is 
preferrable to an equally reasonable paradoxical one.  Are the iota/
non-iota interpretions equally reasonable?  I judge that the iota one
is actually more reasonable, but feel I am on shaky ground with this one,
I mean, what if there *isn't* an iota of time between everything that the
game state does in response to an event?  The rules are certainly silent
on the *order* in which these steps should occur if they do not occur
simultaneously.  I suppose they occur in the order they appear in the
rules, or some common sense order.  Since I have shown a paradox in
the non-iota case, I feel I do not exist to type this in the non-iota
world, because the game prolly crashed along time ago.

Now, after all that, the statement I was asked to judge was:

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

The voting results for proposal 2261 where 2 votes for, 2 votes against,
and 1 vote present.  Did his proposal fail because it did not receive the
required number of YES votes, or because of quorum?  The quorum part of
rule 104 appears before the YES vote part, therefore we check that first,
I suppose.  (It is interesting to note that this requires the iota
interpretation, but that was not why I brought the issue up.)  The fact
that we have been doing it this way lends even more support to the
iota interpretation.

I thus judge that none of the proposals met quorum, and that 2261 failed
by lack of quorum, thus the statement I was asked to judge is FALSE.

To summarize the points of this CFJ:

1) Proposals meet or do not meet quorum based on the game state at the
time of the post containing their results, not based on when they are
'applied' or 'processed'.

2) There is an iota of time seperating each "thing" or "step" that the
game state does.  These "things" are ordered as they appear in the rules,
or as common sense dictates.  

3) In the case of rule 104, I have judged that the quorum check occurs
before the YES vote check, leading to the result that proposal 2261
did in fact fail by reason of quorum (although this would have been easier
had the statement of the CFJ been 'met quorum' as opposed to 'failed
because of quorum'.

4) There is game custom that multiple actions in a single post are
seperated by an iota of time.

5) This was hard (although I feel it was correct too :-))

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:57:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : status and symbols thereof

I changing my status to voting.

I am Voting, I am Voting, I can Vote. Yes!

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 21:01:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rules

On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Also, it seems that Whiz has no access to therules (or the web).
> Rather than mail 500K of rules, does someone have a better idea.

Yeah, compression. Text compresses to approx. a third or its original
size.
You can even make it self extracting with negligible overhead.

Niccolo Flychuck

> Of course, if there is 500K of content, we have little choice except
> to repeal alot of the gizz (e.g. Synod ;-)).

Gizz?
Everything that's neither O/I or a in a Rule Suite ;)

> 
> Malenkai
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:40:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Postmaster

breadbox has volunteered for the vacant office of Postmaster, so I am
(finally)appointing him Postmaster.  And in about twelve hours or so I will
be able to appoint him Tabulator and Promoter, finally.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bruce Cockburn:Dancing In The Dragon's Jaws
Current Book--John A. Williams:Mothersill And The Foxes
As the miniature horse salesman said, 'Every little bit helps.'

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #255
*******************************