Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #273
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Friday, August 29 1997        Volume 02 : Number 273

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:19:02 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : Leaving Seleya

On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > I am leaving the Church of Seleya.
> 
> This leaves only two delegates to the Synod, I believe, so it is no longer
> in session.
> 

Not so. That was ammended some time ago. The Synod now requires only two
Delegates to be in Session.

Niccolo Flychuck
Odo-Delegate
Yor-Delegate

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (Niccolo)

> breadbox did not report what Phoebe said.  She has been found by
> Niccolo.

I want to apologize for everyone for not reporting my conversation
with Phoebe. What happened was that I was working on some harfing
programs when Phoebe showed up, and she gave me some coding advice.
Before long, we were working on the programs together, and by the time
we decided to take a break from all that, she had forgotten what she
had come to tell me in the first place. So she decided to just give it
a miss this time. After she left, I realized I would have to post all
that programming stuff we'd talked about to avoid getting penalized,
since that *is* what she said to me. So I tried to remember all of it
and write it down, but of course I hadn't been memorizing what she
said at the time, and I could only remember bits and pieces which made
no sense when taken out of context....

So I gave up and went to bed instead. Again, I apologize to everyone
for not sharing her wisdom.

(Actually, there *was* one really interesting thing she said that I
remember. We had been talking about flowcharts and such, and I said
something along the lines of that they were basically useless,
everyone knows that, but once in a while I had actually needed to make
one before I could get started on a large-scale project. And Phoebe
said, "Flowcharts are only useful when you have a mental image in your
head that's too big to fit into short-term memory!" Isn't that
*wild*?)

breadbox
maybe you had to be there

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:51:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> (1) Rule 1 did not permit either organization to make changes to the
>   rules.
> 
> (2) Rule 1 permitted both organizations to make changes to the rules.
> 
> (3) Rule 1 permitted only the organization The organization Vulcan
>   [membership: Alfvaen] to change the rules.
> 
> (4) Rule 1 permitted only the organization Vulcan [membership:
>   /dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, Vynd] to change the rules.
> 
> I do not think interpretation (1) is supportable, but it would
> indicate a verdict of True anyway.
> 
> The most interesting question, I think, is whether interpretation (2)
> is reasonable.  I say not.  I argue that the words "The organization
> Vulcan" in rule 1 specify a single organization; the rule is open to
> interpretation about which organization it specifies, but a single
> interpretation (one of (3) or (4)) must be chosen [hence this CFJ].
> My further remarks assume that interpretation (2) is incorrect.
> 
> For this CFJ to be judged False implies, then, that the simple creation
> of the organization The organization Vulcan [membership: Alfvaen]
> caused the correct interpretation of Rule 1 to change.  I find it a
> dangerous concept that a change in the game state could, in effect,
> actuate a change in the Rules, and I hope that the court willfind this
> an unreasonable interpretation.  If so, then this CFJ is True.

It has nothing with a change in the rules. 

The string The organization Vulcan was understood to refer to the
organization whose name is Vulcan by a Common Sense interpretation of this
phrase in plain English. The creation of a new Organization by Alfvaen
with the name The organization Vulcan was  a legal. Rule one gives such
the power to change the rules to  The organization Vulcan. The rules
define entity names, thus the validity of and refference to entity names
are empowered by the rules. Had there not been such an empowerment by the
rules, Game Custom would have dictated that we interpret that phrase as we
woud interpret it in standard English, with the most unparadoxical
interpretation. As such an Organization exists, the rule can only refer to
that Organization.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:56:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassadorness

On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Rule 419.1 seems to require that I post the following information:
> 
> 1) Rishonomic has been reported to have crashed beyond 'interesting repair'.
> A new nomic, New Rishonomic, has joined Internomic as a non-voting player.

I confirm this report.

> 
> 2) Apparently Pumpkin Patch is "mobilizing for war".  When I was a player
> there, they were discussing invading Ackanomic.  The following 
> incoherent babble was posted on the internomic list last night.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the goings on at the patch. While I
am not a member of the patch myself, I have monitoring their public
communications. The patch has learned of the dire situation of Acka which
resulted from the seize of power by several players and has expressed its
concern for their ackan brethren. Even as we write, they are in the
process of preparing care packages for the opressed Ackans.  They are in
no way moblizing for war against Acka, they have voiced their support for
the People. And they await our response.

Niccolo Flychuck

Free Acka

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:58:24 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (Niccolo)

Brian Raiter wrote:

> (Actually, there *was* one really interesting thing she said that I
> remember. We had been talking about flowcharts and such, and I said
> something along the lines of that they were basically useless,
> everyone knows that, but once in a while I had actually needed to make
> one before I could get started on a large-scale project. And Phoebe
> said, "Flowcharts are only useful when you have a mental image in your
> head that's too big to fit into short-term memory!" Isn't that
> *wild*?)
> 
> breadbox
> maybe you had to be there

Whoa. I definitely could have used this advice before I started working 
on hidden agendas. Truly, the Wisdom of Phoebe is boundless.

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:25:00 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 143 (Balsamic Dragon)

> 
> Balsamic Dragon has been picked.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 143
>   Subject: Zuriti'ili
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:41h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
I accept.  However, I see a problem with this is being done as many
separate calls.  What happens if two judges give different judgments about
the same matter?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:35:22 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> 
> Balsamic Dragon (again again) has been chosen.  The die is once again
> very weird.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 452
>   Subject: The organization Vulcan
> Initiator: ThinMan
>     Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 20:04h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
Hold on a sec.  I've been picked for FOUR calls to judgment or criminal
court !!!

Boy, the God's must have me pegged, I work in a law office!  I love this
stuff!

However, in the interests of common sense.  I know very little about
Whamiols (i.e., nothing) and thus must decline judgeship on 451.  

I accept judgeship on 452.

As for CFJ 143 and 145, I accept, however I suggest that we (Myself, Rex
Mundi, and Two Star) discuss whether it is legal under the rules for us to
cooperate on making these four decisions, since all hinge on the same
question (i.e., is Vulcan guilty of Zuriti'ili?).  Of course this assumes
they have accepted, I have read that far ahead yet in my back-log...

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:46:19 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket + Treasure

> 
> When a player publicly posts the location of a GAMES Magazine Hidden
> Contest which has never been publicly posted before, and does so at
> least one week before the end (in New York City) of the day entries
> are due for that contest, e shall find this treasure.
> Players are asked to put SPOILER warnings in the subject of such
> messages so that others who haven't yet given up may keep searching.

CONSIDER THIS A COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS SPOILER MESSAGE:

Okay, I actually own a Games T-shirt, which I won for finding a hidden
contest.  (with the assistance of Thomas Ladegard who is duly recognized
here).  

This was not in a magazine, it was at a convention called DexCon II
(somewhere around 92?), where Games Magazine was a sponser.  They hid a
contest somewhere in the hotel where the con was taking place.  It took us
a couple of days to find it, since it was very devious.  You know those
telephones that they have in hotel lobbies with millions of tiny print
instructions for people with various kinds of calling cards?  Well, they
had printing the hidden contest in the same type font and laminated it to
the phone.  The hidden contest said "To win the hidden contest, go to the
registration desk and sign the national anthem."  Fortunately for me, my
friend Tom does not like signing in public!  Unfortunately, the
registration desk was closed.  However, I showed up bright and early (all
right I just didn't ever go to sleep!) next morning and sung the national
anthem accompanied by Onieros on kazoo.  (Yes, we knew each other back
then, speculate away!)

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:48:18 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patch Things

> 
> This is a message direct to the citizens of Ackanomic.  I come as a
> representive of the Pumpkin Patch Nomic, on behalf of the corrupt
unPumpkin
> Coyote, and with the consent of the majority of patchkins.  I am not the
> Mr. Lunatic Fringe you all knoew and loved.  I am er, phil, or possibly
> harfa, special intelligence officer from the patch.
> 
> I have been instructed to offer Aid and Comfort to the rebliion and
offers
> of care packages containing letter products and points.  I have been
> instructed to inform the Tyranical Ruliung Elite that there time will
come,
> and they will soon be "The First Against The Wall when the rebellion
> comes".  Oni invits all members of the rebellion to leave "Ackra" and
join
> the patch so that the Tyranical Ruling Elite are left "Playing with
> themselves".
> 
I think I speak for all the rebellion when I say that we appreciate Pumpkin
Patch's gesture of support.  I suggest that the letter products and points
so generously given to us by the patchkins be distributed among the members
of the rebellion for fortitude for the troops in the upcoming revolution. 
I further suggest that a common sense definition of the letters be applied,
meaning that the letter G obviously stands for "grand".  Thus, I propose
that the appropriate number of thousands of ackadollars (plus or minus the
current exchange rate) be distrubuted among the rebellion, and that the
rest of the letters be put in a safe place until needed.

Viva la Revolution!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: 29 Aug 1997 08:50:35 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Did I miss CFJ 450?

	It's referred to in CFJ 452, but I don't have a copy.

- -- 
Archie Leach <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:11:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

[CFJ 452:]

> > For this CFJ to be judged False implies, then, that the simple
> creation
> > of the organization The organization Vulcan [membership: Alfvaen]
> > caused the correct interpretation of Rule 1 to change.  I find it a
> > dangerous concept that a change in the game state could, in effect,
> > actuate a change in the Rules, and I hope that the court willfind
> this
> > an unreasonable interpretation.  If so, then this CFJ is True.
> 
> It has nothing with a change in the rules. 
> 
It has _everything_ to do with a potential change in the
_interpretation_ of the rules.  I assert that a change in the correct
interpretation of an existing rule can reasonably be regarded as a
change in that rule.  I do not argue, however, that this necessarily
falls under the restrictions that R101 places on rule changes.  Indeed,
that is a possibility that I hadn't even considered.  It is, however,
one possible interpretation of R101 -- I am not sure whether any game
custom exists to govern the interpretation of R101 on this issue.  As
such, I urge the judge to consider this matter during her
deliberations.

> The string The organization Vulcan was understood to refer to the
> organization whose name is Vulcan by a Common Sense interpretation of
> this
> phrase in plain English. The creation of a new Organization by Alfvaen
> with the name The organization Vulcan was  a legal.
> 
About this we are in full agreement.

>  Rule one gives such
> the power to change the rules to  The organization Vulcan.
> 
At this juncture I will nit-pick that by capitalizing the T in your
sentence above you are merely asserting the correctness of your
argument.  Of course, using a lowercase "t" might be viewed as
conceding the incorrectness.  In any case, I agree with the statement
with the caveat that the whole issue to be decided is the correct
interpretation of the phrase "The organization Vulcan."

>  The rules
> define entity names, thus the validity of and refference to entity
> names
> are empowered by the rules.
> 
This is starting to go a little bit out on a limb.  The rules most
certainly define entity names, and make an entity's name a rule-founded
attribute of that entity.  "Validity" has nothing to do with this,
though.  Again, the whole question is whether or not the wording
of rule 1 constituted a reference to Alfvaen's organization.  If it
did, then the CFJ is false.  If it did not, then the CFJ is true.
A reference to an entity's name is not empowered in any way by the
rules except insomuch as the rules must be interpreted according to
game custom, about which we each have more to say below.

>  Had there not been such an empowerment by the
> rules, Game Custom would have dictated that we interpret that phrase
> as we
> woud interpret it in standard English, with the most unparadoxical
> interpretation.
> 
Game custom indicates that the rules are interpreted according to
standard English unless the Rules provide an alternative
interpretation.  It also indicates that a non-paradoxical
interpretation is favored over a similarly reasonable paradoxical one.
It does not, as far as I can tell, favor one non-paradoxical
interpretation over another on the basis of degree of
"unparadoxicality."

Standard English usage governs the usage and interpretation of names as
references to the corresponding named entities.  It is through this
mechanism and this mechanism alone that references to entities by name
are interpretable in the rules.

>  As such an Organization exists, the rule can only refer to
> that Organization.
> 
This statement simply does not follow.  It is merely an assertion that
the CFJ should be judged false.  NF's whole argument is essentially a
claim that the correct interpretation of rule 1 is indicated by the
rules (and is a particular one of the possible interpretations), but
the fact that we can even debate the question indicates that the rules
are not clear on the matter.  As such it is patently false that "the
rule can only refer to that Organization."

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:15:02 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Did I miss CFJ 450?

Archie Leach wrote:

> 	It's referred to in CFJ 452, but I don't have a copy.
> 
It was Guy Fawke's CFJ that asserted that he had, in fact, obtained
dictatorial powers.  At least, that's the one I meant.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:23:47 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Patch Things

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> I further suggest that a common sense definition of the letters be
> applied,
> meaning that the letter G obviously stands for "grand".  Thus, I
> propose
> that the appropriate number of thousands of ackadollars (plus or minus
> the
> current exchange rate) be distrubuted among the rebellion, and that
> the
> rest of the letters be put in a safe place until needed.
> 
I am reminded of the recent promo's for Jackie Chan's moview Condor:

<Evil Martial Artist> "Had enough?"

<Chan> "Hahahahahahahahaha -- No."

I regret to inform the Rebellion that there is currently no means to
receive these gifts.  Acka is strictly isolationist, and accepts no
imports whatsoever from other Nomics.

ThinMan

(LOL)

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> Hold on a sec.  I've been picked for FOUR calls to judgment or
> criminal court !!!

Malenkai's dice must favor new players. I had a somewhat similar flood
of CFJs a few days after I joined as a player, though not *quite* so
close together. (Unfortunately for me, that happened right after
muppetlabs was taken down for several days to be physically relocated,
so I wound up deadbeating most of them - CFJ 269 most notably.)

> As for CFJ 143 and 145, I accept, however I suggest that we (Myself,
> Rex Mundi, and Two Star) discuss whether it is legal under the rules
> for us to cooperate on making these four decisions, since all hinge
> on the same question (i.e., is Vulcan guilty of Zuriti'ili?).

Actually, the four CFCJs are four different issues. Zuriti'ili is
committed by players, not organizations, and there is no reason why
the guilt (or innocence) of some of the members of Vulcan would have
to implicate (or exonerate) the others.

Admittedly, Guy Fawkes' reasonsings seem to imply that the four crimes
are closely related, but then, what does *he* know about Zuriti'ili?

breadbox

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

Date: 29 Aug 1997 10:03:47 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

"Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]> writes:

> It has _everything_ to do with a potential change in the
> _interpretation_ of the rules.  I assert that a change in the correct
> interpretation of an existing rule can reasonably be regarded as a
> change in that rule.  

	I would have to disagree, and I hope the Court will see it the
same way.  Rules change in interpretation all the time.  This process is
regulated to some extent by tradition and judicial precedent, but it
proceeds none the less.

>			I do not argue, however, that this necessarily
> falls under the restrictions that R101 places on rule changes.  Indeed,
> that is a possibility that I hadn't even considered.  It is, however,
> one possible interpretation of R101 -- I am not sure whether any game
> custom exists to govern the interpretation of R101 on this issue.  As
> such, I urge the judge to consider this matter during her
> deliberations.

	Which would itself be a change in interpretation of R101, which
by your argument is a change in the Rules, and around we go again ad
infinitum.  Stop the world, I wanna get off!

> Game custom indicates that the rules are interpreted according to
> standard English unless the Rules provide an alternative
> interpretation.  It also indicates that a non-paradoxical
> interpretation is favored over a similarly reasonable paradoxical one.
> It does not, as far as I can tell, favor one non-paradoxical
> interpretation over another on the basis of degree of
> "unparadoxicality."

	The wording of "The organization Vulcan" in R1 taken in context
with the rest of the text is ambiguous from an English usage point of
view.  It could easily refer to either an organization named "Vulcan" or
an organization named "The organization Vulcan".  This is the issue under
contention.  Since both organizations exist, neither interpretation is
paradoxical, so it comes down to an issue of which the Judge will
prefer.  I will submit that the text cannot be construed to empower
*both* organizations, because that would require a pluralization of
"organization".

	Had the Rule been formulated with a less ambiguous naming of the
empowered organization, this argument would be moot.

- -- 
Archie Leach <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:21:45 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> 
> Actually, the four CFCJs are four different issues. Zuriti'ili is
> committed by players, not organizations, and there is no reason why
> the guilt (or innocence) of some of the members of Vulcan would have
> to implicate (or exonerate) the others.
> 
> Admittedly, Guy Fawkes' reasonsings seem to imply that the four crimes
> are closely related, but then, what does *he* know about Zuriti'ili?
> 

I disagree.  The statements themselves are different, however the reasoning
incorporates four distinct parts:

1.	An organization can be guilty of Z.
2.	Vulcan is guilty of Z.
3.	<name> is a member of, or associated with Vulcan.
4.	Therefor, <name> is guilty of Z.

Of these four parts, the first two are common to all of that group of
CFCJs.

Now, it is possible for the statements to be held true for a reason other
than the one that Guy provides, i.e., the persons charged are guilty of
individual Zuriti'ili, therefor, I wish to confer with my other judges to
see which of them are judging based on Guy Falkes reasoning.  It doesn't
have any real game effect, paradox is not an issue here.  However, it may
make things easier to interpret for future game custom.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:56:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka : Leaving Seleya

> > > I am leaving the Church of Seleya.

> > This leaves only two delegates to the Synod, I believe, so it is no longer
> > in session.

> Not so. That was ammended some time ago. The Synod now requires only two
> Delegates to be in Session.

You're right; I do recall that amendment now.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Over 60 Minutes With Gordon Lightfoot
Current Book--Terence M. Green:Shadow of Ashland
Garnish with beak.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:31:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> 	The wording of "The organization Vulcan" in R1 taken in context
> with the rest of the text is ambiguous from an English usage point of
> view.  It could easily refer to either an organization named "Vulcan" or
> an organization named "The organization Vulcan".  This is the issue under
> contention.  Since both organizations exist, neither interpretation is
> paradoxical, so it comes down to an issue of which the Judge will
> prefer.  I will submit that the text cannot be construed to empower
> *both* organizations, because that would require a pluralization of
> "organization".

I don't see why not, and even if I did, I wouldn't mention it in the public
forum.  Or even in private email to the Judge.  :-)  I can't recall,
however, that Vulcan ever utilized Rule 1, so they can't claim a "prior
usage" precedent.

> 	Had the Rule been formulated with a less ambiguous naming of the
> empowered organization, this argument would be moot.

Yes, and then I wouldn't have been able to try a Malenkai's Loophole trick
against it!  Count your blessings!  The Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite
haven't slipped up too many times.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Over 60 Minutes With Gordon Lightfoot
Current Book--Terence M. Green:Shadow of Ashland
What would hypochondriac acid dissolve?

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 08:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> Now, it is possible for the statements to be held true for a reason
> other than the one that Guy provides,

Which is really all I was saying in the first place. In the end, the
statement is the only part of the CFCJ that you are judging. (Now,
since this is Zuriti'ili, the Zuriti'ili rule does call for the
suggested guidelines to avoid conflicts with each other, but that's a
separate issue.) And since the actual CFCJ statements are disjoint
from each other, the verdicts themselves essentially cannot conflict.
Only the statements and the verdicts become an official part of game
custom.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:59:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> > Now, it is possible for the statements to be held true for a reason
> > other than the one that Guy provides,

> Which is really all I was saying in the first place. In the end, the
> statement is the only part of the CFCJ that you are judging. (Now,
> since this is Zuriti'ili, the Zuriti'ili rule does call for the
> suggested guidelines to avoid conflicts with each other, but that's a
> separate issue.) And since the actual CFCJ statements are disjoint
> from each other, the verdicts themselves essentially cannot conflict.
> Only the statements and the verdicts become an official part of game
> custom.

So what happens if two simultaneous Zuriti'ili judgements return
conflicting guidelines?  Neither has the force to deny the other until the
appeal period is over...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Paul Simon:The Rhythm of The Saints
Current Book--Terence M. Green:Shadow of Ashland
Errata: For "Errata", read "Erratum".

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 20:53:46 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 144 (two-star)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> two-star has been picked.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 144
>   Subject: Zuriti'ili
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: two-star (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:49h EDT)

I accept this CFCJ

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> So what happens if two simultaneous Zuriti'ili judgements return
> conflicting guidelines?  Neither has the force to deny the other
> until the appeal period is over...

Zuriti'ili guidelines are supposed to be relatively broad at this
stage, so I don't think that's likely. But if it does: One judgement
will be returned to the CotC and distributed first. That one will not
be in conflict with anything, and so the later one will be the
one that is seen as having the conflicting guideline.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:43:42 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> Only the statements and the verdicts become an official part of game
> custom.
> 
That makes no sense, especially in this case.  If only the statements and
verdicts became game custom, the statement "<name> is guilty of a crime"
would become game custom without reference to what crime and why. 
Obviously, the reasoning becomes a part of game custom, whether official or
not.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 17:47:37 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> As for CFJ 143 and 145, I accept, however I suggest that we (Myself, Rex
> Mundi, and Two Star) discuss whether it is legal under the rules for us
to
> cooperate on making these four decisions, since all hinge on the same
> question (i.e., is Vulcan guilty of Zuriti'ili?).  Of course this assumes
> they have accepted, I have read that far ahead yet in my back-log...
> 
I must have missed this. What CFCJ was I chosen for? breadbox says my
mail's been bouncing :-(.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:14:04 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

Archie Leach wrote:

[I wrote:]

> > It has _everything_ to do with a potential change in the
> > _interpretation_ of the rules.  I assert that a change in the
> correct
> > interpretation of an existing rule can reasonably be regarded as a
> > change in that rule.  
> 
> 	I would have to disagree, and I hope the Court will see it the
> same way.  Rules change in interpretation all the time.  This process
> is
> regulated to some extent by tradition and judicial precedent, but it
> proceeds none the less.
> 
I am not fully convinced that Mr. Leach's above comments are false, but
I am inclined to disagree.  I do not believe that the correct
interpretation of the Rules of Ackanomic changes independent of changes
to the text or  numbering of the rules themselves.  It is sometimes
necessary identify the correct interpretation by way of CFJ, but that
doesn't _change_ the correct interpretation.

> >			I do not argue, however, that this necessarily
> > falls under the restrictions that R101 places on rule changes.
> Indeed,
> > that is a possibility that I hadn't even considered.  It is,
> however,
> > one possible interpretation of R101 -- I am not sure whether any
> game
> > custom exists to govern the interpretation of R101 on this issue.
> As
> > such, I urge the judge to consider this matter during her
> > deliberations.
> 
> 	Which would itself be a change in interpretation of R101, which
> by your argument is a change in the Rules, and around we go again ad
> infinitum.  Stop the world, I wanna get off!
> 
Not so.  If rule 101 has never before been applied to such a situation,
then the correct interpretation is unknown.  If Ms. Dragon decides
that rule 101 is applicable as I have described then that establishes
what the correct interpretation is -- it doesn't _change_ anything.
Indeed, I am inclined to say that CFJs (almost) _never_ change
anything.  (The qualifier is only required because certain rules
generate effects dependant on specific judgements on specific kinds
of CFJ.)  In the overwhelming majority of cases, CFJs simply tell us
where we are -- but they don't _move_ us there from somewhere else.

> 	The wording of "The organization Vulcan" in R1 taken in context
> with the rest of the text is ambiguous from an English usage point of
> view.  It could easily refer to either an organization named "Vulcan"
> or
> an organization named "The organization Vulcan".  This is the issue
> under
> contention.  Since both organizations exist, neither interpretation is
> paradoxical, so it comes down to an issue of which the Judge will
> prefer.  I will submit that the text cannot be construed to empower
> *both* organizations, because that would require a pluralization of
> "organization".
> 
That is exactly right.  Thank you.  I thought that the CFJ reasoning
laid this out rather clearly, myself.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:21:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

Alfvaen wrote:

> > 	The wording of "The organization Vulcan" in R1 taken in context
> > with the rest of the text is ambiguous from an English usage point
> of
> > view.  It could easily refer to either an organization named
> "Vulcan" or
> > an organization named "The organization Vulcan".  This is the issue
> under
> > contention.  Since both organizations exist, neither interpretation
> is
> > paradoxical, so it comes down to an issue of which the Judge will
> > prefer.  I will submit that the text cannot be construed to empower
> > *both* organizations, because that would require a pluralization of
> > "organization".
> 
> I don't see why not, and even if I did, I wouldn't mention it in the
> public
> forum.  Or even in private email to the Judge.  :-)
> 
Too late.  It is already included in the CFJ reasoning.

>   I can't recall,
> however, that Vulcan ever utilized Rule 1, so they can't claim a
> "prior
> usage" precedent.
> 
This is true, but irrelevant.  If Rule 1 did not permit the
Organization named "The organization Vulcan" to do so then it didn't
either, notwithstanding its _attempt_ to do so.  A prior attempt by
Vulcan to use the rule might possibly have been subjected to a similar
objection, although I don't think that any objection to a usage that
occured between the Rule's creation and Alfvaen's organization
creation would have been supported by a judge.  It is extremely
important to distinguish what we attempt to do from what actually
happens.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:23:18 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

> I must have missed this. What CFCJ was I chosen for? breadbox says my
> mail's been bouncing :-(.
> 
> Rex Mundi.

OK, I've got it now. Thanks.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

>> Only the statements and the verdicts become an official part of game
>> custom.
>  
> That makes no sense, especially in this case.  If only the
> statements and verdicts became game custom, the statement "<name> is
> guilty of a crime" would become game custom without reference to
> what crime and why.  Obviously, the reasoning becomes a part of game
> custom, whether official or not.

As I said, only the statements and verdict become an official part of
game custom. Or explicit, I should say. Read Rule 216. (If you're up
for it, then read CFJs 168, 227, 228, 232, and 434, though not
necessarily in that order.)

But my point is that you're *not* determining the interpretation of a
thorny rule for everyone who will come after you. You're deciding
whether or not to stick someone with Zuriti'ili. The demands that the
implicit part of the game custom - i.e., the reasonings of the various
CFCJs - remain consistent with one another are *greatly* lessened than
they would be with other Judgements.

breadbox
not an Expert, just a Justice

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acka: Acka: Re: Did I miss CFJ 450?

This reminds me - Malenkai, are you still considering harfing a CFJ
archive? Or would you really prefer not to?

breadbox

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

Date: 29 Aug 1997 13:16:30 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Oh, that reminds me:

	No-one's yet responded with an offer to host my CGI archive
work-in-progress.  I'd set it up myself at work, but management caught my
last little fiasco (private NNTP server) and I don't want to repeat the
performance.

	Without a site it's just so much wasted effort.  I really think a
common archive would simplify the various harfers' tasks immensely, and
that's what I have developed.

- -- 
Archie Leach <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:25:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, that reminds me:

> 	No-one's yet responded with an offer to host my CGI archive
> work-in-progress.  I'd set it up myself at work, but management caught my
> last little fiasco (private NNTP server) and I don't want to repeat the
> performance.

It is vaguely possible that I could set it up at albertanet.com, which I
have some access to since it's set up by ex-Terranet folks and I'm doing
consulting work for them.  But I'm not sure how much disk space I can use.
Also, I'm a Perl-over-Python person.  :-)  breadbox?

> 	Without a site it's just so much wasted effort.  I really think a
> common archive would simplify the various harfers' tasks immensely, and
> that's what I have developed.

Well, it's not totally unheard of to put a lot of work into something that
nobody else cares about.  :-)

But you may just have to wait a bit.  breadbox is still trying to get
Acrobot, our _previous_ python program to simply Officers' tasks, up and
running, and doing sundry other things.  We're still dealing with the
transition of all the previous officers' tasks.  It may not be the right
time to think about new ways to do them yet.

Yes, in the long run it will probably make things easier, but in the short
term it'll take more effort to set up, and until then it'll be easier to do
it the hard way.

That said, you mentioned needing some help converting formats; I'd be
willing to do some of that in my copious spare time(I'll have to see just
how much, of course), so email me and let me know what precisely needs to
be done.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Nylons:4 On The Floor
Current Book--Terence M. Green:Shadow of Ashland
The South Pole opened up, all the penguins fell inside

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:54:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patch Things

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> 
> > 
> > This is a message direct to the citizens of Ackanomic.  I come as a
> > representive of the Pumpkin Patch Nomic, on behalf of the corrupt
> unPumpkin
> > Coyote, and with the consent of the majority of patchkins.  I am not the
> > Mr. Lunatic Fringe you all knoew and loved.  I am er, phil, or possibly
> > harfa, special intelligence officer from the patch.
> > 
> > I have been instructed to offer Aid and Comfort to the rebliion and
> offers
> > of care packages containing letter products and points.  I have been
> > instructed to inform the Tyranical Ruliung Elite that there time will
> come,
> > and they will soon be "The First Against The Wall when the rebellion
> > comes".  Oni invits all members of the rebellion to leave "Ackra" and
> join
> > the patch so that the Tyranical Ruling Elite are left "Playing with
> > themselves".
> > 
> I think I speak for all the rebellion when I say that we appreciate Pumpkin
> Patch's gesture of support.  I suggest that the letter products and points
> so generously given to us by the patchkins be distributed among the members
> of the rebellion for fortitude for the troops in the upcoming revolution. 
> I further suggest that a common sense definition of the letters be applied,
> meaning that the letter G obviously stands for "grand".  Thus, I propose
> that the appropriate number of thousands of ackadollars (plus or minus the
> current exchange rate) be distrubuted among the rebellion, and that the
> rest of the letters be put in a safe place until needed.
> 
> Viva la Revolution!
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 

Unfortunately, ackanomic does not currently accept entities (or whatevers)
created in other Nomics.  We had some rules on internomic exchanges for
awhile, but people seemd to think they had a lot of problems and they were
never used.  Actually, I think that prehaps the things being offered to
phil were being given to his character in the PP, not to Ackanomic or any
member thereof.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #273
*******************************