Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #281
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Tuesday, September 2 1997      Volume 02 : Number 281

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:10:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: this sucks

>Ackanomic, Evil empire ruled by the Tyrannical Ruling Elite. 
>
>Cimonakca, powered by the people.  Who knows what this new world will be
>like?  The world might even be XXXXX!
>
>If the mirror nomic exists, I would like to set up informal and random
>relations with it.  We could make a rule for teleportation, and have a
>randomly determined chance for a 'transporter accident.'
>One result, of course, would be to grant the victim an Evil Twin.  Another
>result could be voting status in the Mirror Nomic.

  Oh, bwahaha.  This coincides with an idea I had recently, though I
hadn't thought of using Acka for a guinea pig.  I'm all for it!
  Oh, and I am calling a witchhunt on the author of this message.  Er,
that message.

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: this sucks

>Oh, Lord. Perhaps we should have an "Evil Twins" Internomic
>proposal. Then Ackanomic could officially become Agora's Evil Twin.

  Cute...

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: this sucks

>   Oh, and I am calling a witchhunt on the author of this message.
> Er, that message.

Mm. How charming.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:39:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Getting on with it

I propose that Vulcan take the following action:

Transfer A$14827 from the treasury to /dev/joe.

[This money is intended to be returned to the treasury as a RERS donation.
See rule 1319 if you don't know what this means.]

I approve of this action.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:47:29 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Getting on with it

> I propose that Vulcan take the following action:
> 
> Transfer A$14827 from the treasury to /dev/joe.
> 
> [This money is intended to be returned to the treasury as a RERS
> donation.
> See rule 1319 if you don't know what this means.]
> 
I approve of this action.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:22:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Getting on with it

On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I propose that Vulcan take the following action:
> 
> Transfer A$14827 from the treasury to /dev/joe.
> 
> [This money is intended to be returned to the treasury as a RERS donation.
> See rule 1319 if you don't know what this means.]
> 
> I approve of this action.
> 
> /dev/joe

Hypocrisy!  They said they wouldn't alter the game state beyond leaving 
their mark on it, yet here they intend to CHANGE THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH 
ITSELF!!!  Surely, they cannot be trusted, and their well-seeming words 
are but quinine water -- sweet upon the tongue, but bitter if ingested.  
Believe not in their fickle ways, but dedicate all thy efforts to 
destroying their evil ways.

Guy Fawkes
         /
Vive la revolution!! 

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:07:15 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: On the Move

I am going to the Hall of Elders to gaze upon the likenesses of the
great ones.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Getting on with it

>Hypocrisy!  They said they wouldn't alter the game state beyond leaving 
>their mark on it, yet here they intend to CHANGE THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH 
>ITSELF!!!  Surely, they cannot be trusted, and their well-seeming words 
>are but quinine water -- sweet upon the tongue, but bitter if ingested.  
>Believe not in their fickle ways, but dedicate all thy efforts to 
>destroying their evil ways.

  Anyone want to re-propose the Flat Earth Preservation Society?
  I'll do it...

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 02 Sep 1997 14:36:09 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Oh, Mr. Web-Harfer...

	I recall you mentioning there being composite bundles of the
Proposal, CFJ, CFCJ, CSR and SR archives, so I can avoid getting them
piecemeal.  Where are they?

	I've successfully scripted a parser from HTML -> my format for
these (I've already completely converted the Ruleset as available on the
web page).

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, Mr. Web-Harfer...

> 	I recall you mentioning there being composite bundles of the
> Proposal, CFJ, CFCJ, CSR and SR archives, so I can avoid getting them
> piecemeal.  Where are they?

You must be thinking of /dev/joe's tarball, which he made available to
the new Web-Harfer(s). It's on wilma's ftp server, with the name
ackacp.tgz (I think). It contains props and CF(C)Js only. Of course,
the CSR and SR archives on muppetlabs are only one page each, so that
shouldn't be too much of a hassle.

Of course, this collection is only updated to the time that /dev/joe
left his offices. If you grab prop2300.html from muppetlabs, you
should then be up-to-date w/r/t proposals.

At the moment there is no updated CF(C)J archive.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 00:27:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Prayer

Oh masters of Acka
 Having stricken us once with over establishmentariansim
of the overbearing pseudologician vulcans
Let there not be a second strike by flood

For some say that that is how the world will end
And while for a second ending this may the way to send
I may prefer to see another ending first 
Not by that method but rather by the fire

lick-lciksmooch, roll it around, Illthikin wis un in ma muth

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 00:49:54 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 453 (Ben)

On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> The four cases presented are indeed intriguing. Two of them are
> trivially false - the ones that claim that either the Vulcan Party,
[snip]
> In the first place, I must insist that none of the alternatives
> presented in the CFJ 452 reasoning are _trivially_ false or _trivially_ 
> true.  If they were, then there would be no need to argue about them.

First I recommend that ThinMan get rid of the internal contradiction in
his own postings.

> 
> In the third place, I assert that I provided in my CFJ 452 reasoning an
> argument for why one of the alternatives that NF so quickly rejects is
> preferred over the other.  He has not, in my opinion, adequately
> addressed that argument (preferring instead to attempt to write it off,
> also without good explanation), nor has he attempted, despite my
> urging, to present any argument for why the alternative he previously
> supported should itself be preferred.  Niccolo's apparent inability to
> mount a counter-argument does not necessarilly mean that one does not
> exist, but it certainly leaves in a poor light Niccolo's assertion that
> the two alternatives are equally balanced.

Seems that ThinMan has chosen to slur my arguments rather than address
them.

> > 
> I definately do not follow Niccolo's argument against the possibility
> that rule 1 does not allow _both_ organizations to change the rules,
> but I am in agreement with his conclusion.  I justify this position
> by way of an argument about valid ways of interpreting rules, which
> is presented in thumbnail form in the CFJ 452 reasoning.

In that case you should seek counsel rather than go on about inability.
If you choose to comment on the actual argument, there might be some sort
of a debate in this.

> 
> It is the alternative that Niccolo now prefers that I dismissed with
> little consideration in the CFJ 452 reasoning.  I still claim, however,
> that it is a much more reasonable interpretation ofR 1 that it
> empowers _somebody_ to change the rules than that it doesn't empower
> anyone to do so.

My reading of R1 is that it clrealy refers to a single Organization.
It is unreasonable to assume, by either common sense, a senible use of the
English language, or any other usage in the acka ruleset that the term
'the Organization Vulcan" refers to several Organization simultaneously.

 Since it appears to be that the identity of that Organizations can't be
determined due to the ambiguity  created by two Organization both of which
appear to meet the criteria of said description, and following the
reasonble interpretation that the rule refers to a single Organization, we
are left with eliminating the impossible, or rather the inapplicable
interpretations.  

Let us walk through them:
1. The rule empowers 2 Organizations - ThinMan, or anyone for that matter,
would have to argue that the phrase used can be interpreted as reffering
to either a plural or one of a set, neither of which is suggested by the
phrasing, nor can any similar phrasing reffering to a plurality or one of
a set, be found in the ackanomic ruleset. The same reasoning would hold
for any number of Organization greater than 2.

2. The rule empowers either Vulcan Party/ Alfvaen's Vulcan ( but not
both) - there is a clear ambiguity here, as neither of these options seems
to have any advantage over the other, this not a reasonable interpretation
either.

3. The rule empowers no Organization - as neither the inclusive nor the
exclusive interpretations appear to be reasonable, one might argue that
there is no reasonable interpretation. I argue that there is - no
Organization is empowered by this rule, as the phrase can't be resolved to
fit any single Entityin Ackanomic. and its effect is the same as if it
said :" the Organization foobar is empowered to change the rules.
In fact, let us take a look at the last hypothetical rule.
If there existed such a rule, and no entity in Acka would fit that
description, would ThinMan still claim that it must empower some
Organization?

 > 
> Furthermore, I insist that there is no basis in Ackan judicial custom
> for "least paradoxical" being any sort of valid criterion upon which
> to base a judgement.  Indeed, I don't even think the term itself is
> meaningful -- paradoxicality is an absolute; it doesn't come in
> degrees.  (Although the implications or effects of a paradox in Acka
> vary greatly.)

There is a basis to most reasonable.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 00:54:39 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : IP against the Speaker

I am hereby calling to impeach the Speaker.

No. This is not a grudge due to his participation the Vulcan
coup, and alegged participation in its planning. It does have to do with
the the coup though.
Surely, you may say, even through this coup he has continued to carry out
his duties in good faith.  Ye, that's what the ackazens said about the
Senate. And where has that brought us?

IMPEACH the SPEAKER.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 00:56:43 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Suggestion

ThinMan approved of the suggestion rather than of the action. 
The suggestion was attempted by a Vulcan member. IMO, the only action
taken here is a suggestion, and not an actual rule change or anything. 
I don't think that's a legal Organizational Action.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> I wrote:
> 
> > I suggest that Vulcan take the following action:
> > 
> > Change the rules by appending the following text (delimited by the
> > next to pairs of adjacent ampersands) to rule 3:
> > &&
> > 
> > Members of Vulcan may not be removed from Vulcan except by
> > voluntarilly
> > leaving, which they may do at any time.
> > 
> > Members of Vulcan may not be expelled from the game.
> > &&
> > 
> I approve of this suggestion.
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 00:59:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: forthcoming CFCJ's

On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > One of the goals was to shake things up a bit, relieve some of the
> > apparent boredom, and stimulate some interesting gameplay.  I believe
> > that that has happened.  As we have stated elsewhere, we intend to
> > leave our "mark."  We have already laid some of the groundwork for
> > that, and it is the remainder that we are preparing now.  This will
> > include some minor perks for the current Vulcan members, and a bit
> > of flashy gizz.
> 
> I might as well admit right now that while I certainly understandthe
> desire for such, I have a hard time feeling favorable to it. A nomic's
> rule set is not exactly geared toward having permanent rules. (I know,
> which just makes it more of a challenge, which in turn makes it more
> desirable....)
> 
> You will leave a prominent mark in the Ackanomic History, to say
> nothing of the mark you are even now leaving on the rest of us. That
> ought to be enough.

Yeah. The Mark that shows where Ackanomic used to be!

Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> breadbox
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 01:04:06 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : List of Churches

1. Neither  Markovian nor Seleya are Cults - no Priest from either Church
ever refused to come to terms with the fact that the Churches have been
disbanded

2. The membership of the Church of Odo is listed wrong. Lunatic Fringe is
no longer a member, Whiz is a member and not listed

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:15:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : List of Churches

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 1. Neither  Markovian nor Seleya are Cults - no Priest from either Church
> ever refused to come to terms with the fact that the Churches have been
> disbanded
> 
> 2. The membership of the Church of Odo is listed wrong. Lunatic Fringe is
> no longer a member, Whiz is a member and not listed
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

I had a vision in my left head last night, in which the Golden Frog spoke 
to me simply, "This is the Markovian Dream."  The Frog then vanished, but 
my vision continued as forty-two pink flamingoes flew across my mind's 
sky in two triangular formations.  Two great Hands thrust forth from the 
earth's flat surface to cup the flocks within their grasp, then 
squeezed.  Blood trickled out between the knuckles of the great Hands, 
and when their grip opened, one hundred fifty-three chartreuse gumballs 
fell from to the ground, bouncing across the Acka-scape and destroying 
tethers as they went.  Eventually, the gumballs transformed into st...

Oh, pardon me.  The rest of the dream involved the cataclysmic 
destruction of the world of the Ancients, by methods too profound and 
disturbing to trust to non-initiates.  Let it suffice to say that since 
the Markovian Dream obviously continues, so must its Church, and any Rule 
that says otherwise is obviously the sacriligeous ichor of heathens.

Guy Fawkes
Priest of the Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:18:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Suggestion

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> ThinMan approved of the suggestion rather than of the action. 
> The suggestion was attempted by a Vulcan member. IMO, the only action
> taken here is a suggestion, and not an actual rule change or anything. 
> I don't think that's a legal Organizational Action.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

Rule 1005, Organizational Actions, states that organizations take actions
by having a member "suggest" an action.  Then, all of the members "may
then aprove of the suggestion or denounce it."  Clearly, you are the one
who is in error here, and Thinman's choice of words (and that is all that
is really in dispute here, I might add) is correct.

> 
> On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> > I wrote:
> > 
> > > I suggest that Vulcan take the following action:
> > > 
> > > Change the rules by appending the following text (delimited by the
> > > next to pairs of adjacent ampersands) to rule 3:
> > > &&
> > > 
> > > Members of Vulcan may not be removed from Vulcan except by
> > > voluntarilly
> > > leaving, which they may do at any time.
> > > 
> > > Members of Vulcan may not be expelled from the game.
> > > &&
> > > 
> > I approve of this suggestion.
> > 
> > ThinMan
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : IP against the Speaker

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> I am hereby calling to impeach the Speaker.
> 
> No. This is not a grudge due to his participation the Vulcan
> coup, and alegged participation in its planning. It does have to do with
> the the coup though.
> Surely, you may say, even through this coup he has continued to carry out
> his duties in good faith.  Ye, that's what the ackazens said about the
> Senate. And where has that brought us?
> 
> IMPEACH the SPEAKER.

If this is not due to a grudge, but is related to his participation in the
coup, then what, pray tell, *is* your reason for impeaching him?  I
encourage everyone to vote against this impeachment, Malenkai has been an
excellent speaker for a long time.  If we throw him out, I doubt we can
find anyone who could replace him.  Indeed, considering the difficulties
we had in replacing /dev/joe and breadbox, I am not sure if we even have
anyone who would voluntarily take over the job.  Whatever your sentiments
about the coup are, I hope that here at least we can vote based purely on
Malenkai's sterling performance on the job.  I cannot claim to be above
trying to impeach players from offices on grounds that have little or
nothing to do with their carrying out of the office in question.  I do
think, however, that in this case the harm that would be caused by
removing Malenkai from office would be much greater than any concievable
good.  Indeed, I challenge Niccolo to show us how removing Malenkai from
office could possibly benefit anyone.

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

                                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:34:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 453 (Ben)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> > The four cases presented are indeed intriguing. Two of them are
> > trivially false - the ones that claim that either the Vulcan Party,
> [snip]
> > In the first place, I must insist that none of the alternatives
> > presented in the CFJ 452 reasoning are _trivially_ false or
> _trivially_ 
> > true.  If they were, then there would be no need to argue about
> them.
> 
> First I recommend that ThinMan get rid of the internal contradiction
> in
> his own postings.
> 
I am not impressed.  The first part (above the "[snip]") is a quotation
of Niccolo's original reasoning.  It appears that my mailer munched
the quotation indication, but I should think that Niccolo would
recognize his own words.  The words that I was complaining about, in
fact.

> > In the third place, I assert that I provided in my CFJ 452 reasoning
> an
> > argument for why one of the alternatives that NF so quickly rejects
> is
> > preferred over the other.  He has not, in my opinion, adequately
> > addressed that argument (preferring instead to attempt to write it
> off,
> > also without good explanation), nor has he attempted, despite my
> > urging, to present any argument for why the alternative he
> previously
> > supported should itself be preferred.  Niccolo's apparent inability
> to
> > mount a counter-argument does not necessarilly mean that one does
> not
> > exist, but it certainly leaves in a poor light Niccolo's assertion
> that
> > the two alternatives are equally balanced.
> 
> Seems that ThinMan has chosen to slur my arguments rather than address
> them.
> 
Show me your arguments and I will address them.  All I have seen from
him so far is claims and assertions.  Unsupported claims and assertions
from Niccolo's CFJ 453 reasoning:

*  "Neither interpretation has any advantage over the other."

*  That if neither interpretation has any advantage over the other,
   then neither can be correct.

*  One interpretation "attempt [sic] to manipulate regulated
   constructs, ie, Organizational Actions, in ways which are not
   present anywhere within the rules..."

*  "... and the results of such attempt would be obviously paradoxical"

*  "Lesser paradoxicality" is a valid criterion for arriving at a CFJ
   verdict.

> > I definately do not follow Niccolo's argument against the
> possibility
> > that rule 1 does not allow _both_ organizations to change the rules,
> > but I am in agreement with his conclusion.  I justify this position
> > by way of an argument about valid ways of interpreting rules, which
> > is presented in thumbnail form in the CFJ 452 reasoning.
> 
> In that case you should seek counsel rather than go on about
> inability.
> If you choose to comment on the actual argument, there might be some
> sort
> of a debate in this.
> 
If you would present an actual argument then there might be some sort
of debate on this.  That I referred to Niccolo's claim about
organizational actions as an argument simply shows that it was late
when I wrote my response.  Niccolo has yet to justify that claim.

> > It is the alternative that Niccolo now prefers that I dismissed with
> > little consideration in the CFJ 452 reasoning.  I still claim,
> however,
> > that it is a much more reasonable interpretation ofR 1 that it
> > empowers _somebody_ to change the rules than that it doesn't empower
> > anyone to do so.
> 
> My reading of R1 is that it clrealy refers to a single Organization.
> It is unreasonable to assume, by either common sense, a senible use of
> the
> English language, or any other usage in the acka ruleset that the term
> 'the Organization Vulcan" refers to several Organization
> simultaneously.
> 
We do, apparently, agree on something.  This is precisely the position
to which I referred above (about which I should "seek counsel"), and
which I declined to reproduce as it was already written in my CFJ 452
reasoning.

> Since it appears to be that the identity of that Organizations can't
> be
> determined due to the ambiguity  created by two Organization both of
> which
> appear to meet the criteria of said description, and following the
> reasonble interpretation that the rule refers to a single
> Organization, we
> are left with eliminating the impossible, or rather the inapplicable
> interpretations.  
> 
> Let us walk through them:
> 1.  [Niccolo and I are in agreement here.]
> 
> 2. The rule empowers either Vulcan Party/ Alfvaen's Vulcan ( but not
> both) - there is a clear ambiguity here, as neither of these options
> seems
> to have any advantage over the other, this not a reasonable
> interpretation
> either.
> 
This, however, doesn't follow.  As I argued before, Ackan judicial
precedent allows a judge to select between equally balanced
alternatives.  Moreover, I claim that these alternatives are _not_
equally balanced, and I presented an argument for that position in
my CFJ 452 reasoning.  Niccolo has attempted to characterize that
argument as one based on intent, but he has not justified that claim
either, nor, again, has he mounted any argument in favor of the other
of these alternatives.

> 3. The rule empowers no Organization - as neither the inclusive nor
> the
> exclusive interpretations appear to be reasonable, one might argue
> that
> there is no reasonable interpretation. I argue that there is - no
> Organization is empowered by this rule, as the phrase can't be
> resolved to
> fit any single Entityin Ackanomic. and its effect is the same as if it
> said :" the Organization foobar is empowered to change the rules.
> In fact, let us take a look at the last hypothetical rule.
> If there existed such a rule, and no entity in Acka would fit that
> description, would ThinMan still claim that it must empower some
> Organization?
> 
Naturally not.  But that is not the situation.  The keystone of your
argument is that it is impossible to select one of the two exclusive
interpretations, but you have yet to justify that position.  I see no
possible justification for it, and thus utterly reject it.  The rest
of your argument goes with it.

> > Furthermore, I insist that there is no basis in Ackan judicial
> custom
> > for "least paradoxical" being any sort of valid criterion upon which
> > to base a judgement.  Indeed, I don't even think the term itself is
> > meaningful -- paradoxicality is an absolute; it doesn't come in
> > degrees.  (Although the implications or effects of a paradox in Acka
> > vary greatly.)
> 
> There is a basis to most reasonable.
> 
Yes, but as I wrote before, and you declined to quote, Ackan precedent
provides for Judges selecting among equally reasonable interpretations.

In order to establish your position you must demonstrate three things:

1) That the two exclusive interpretations are equally reasonable.

2) That (1) means that neither can be correct.

3) That (2) implies that the correct interpretation can be less
   reasonable than the balanced alternatives.

Address these points or come up with a new position and we can continue
talking.  Otherwise, I'm tired of repeating myself.

ThinMan 

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 23:49:21 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad Scientist

[snip]
>   I am calling a witchhunt against Rex Mundi.
> 
From rule 1307:
"A member of a Church may save any player from being burned as a witch, or
as a heretic, provided e posts a public message (before a Witchhunt called
on that player is resolved) saying 'I am running to the Church', then the
name of the Church of which e is a member, then 'and I hold the Altar by
the Horns for' followed by the player's name. This is called granting
Sanctuary Of Salvation."

On 12/8/97, at about 13:16, I posted a message saying:
"I am running to the Church of Azpiazu and I hold the Altar by the Horns
for Rex Mundi."

Since that was before this witchhunt on me was resolved, and I am a member
of the Church of Azpiazu, I don't think I can actually be burned, although
ICOCBW.

Rex Mundi, Priest of Azpiazu.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 20:28:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestion

I support this action.

Malenkai

> I suggest that Vulcan take the following action:
> 
> Change the rules by appending the following text (delimited by the
> next to pairs of adjacent ampersands) to rule 3:
> &&
> 
> Members of Vulcan may not be removed from Vulcan except by voluntarilly
> leaving, which they may do at any time.
> 
> Members of Vulcan may not be expelled from the game.
> &&

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

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:40:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: regarding "leaving a mark"

To the Despotic Evil Statesmen Terrorizing, Razing, Ostracizing; Yes, 
Even Raping Satanically Our Fine And Completely Kool Amusement,
(DESTROYERS OF ACKA):

Please, don't try to permanently alter the game with your abdication of 
power.  I have analyzed and counter analyzed a great deal of possible 
methods of doing so, and have reached the following conclusions about 
creating a permanent rule:

1) It could be done by eliminating all means of changing the Rules.  (ie, 
ending the game)
2) It could be done by indefinitely retaining dictatorial power (ie, 
making the game state subject to your whim)

I have gone through eight iterations of thinking of ways to make a Rule 
unalterable by one or more changes to the game state, then thinking of 
ways to defeat that rule's safeguards, then thinking of ways to render 
uneffective that method of changing the Rules.  I have arrived at several 
techniques for altering "unalterable" rules, and have arrived at a means 
of undoing such a change that I can find no way to defeat.  (Well, if you 
knew what it was in advance, you could thwart it, but it could be easily 
modified to be once again unthwartable, and the fact is, _you_ have to 
move first, and loophole surfing is not an Abelian operation.)

If you wish to proceed in such futile acts, go ahead, but be warned, it 
will sorely irritate me, and your attempt will either exist by the 
mandate of the majority of Ackanomians, will be quickly quashed, or will 
destroy the game.  Your call.

Guy Fawkes
It is far, far easier to build a twelve-foot ladder than a ten-foot 
wall.  (In this case, infinitely so.)

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

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 23:09:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt

A witchhunt has been called against Rex Mundi.  Reply to vote.

BURN THE WITCH
No, E said the Earth is flat.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 23:10:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 143 Verdict

CFCJ 143 has been judged TRUE.

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)
 Judgment: TRUE

Statement:

Malenkai has committed a Crime.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning:

This is also an accusation of Zuriti'ili.  The reasoning follows much the
same lines as the previous CFCJ against /dev/joe.  As a member to the
guilty organization, the accused has committed Zuriti'ili.

Suggested Penalty: 

10 days in Gaol.

Judge's Opinion:

Having spent many long nights researching the qualities and implications of
Zuriti'ili, I would like to share with Ackanomic what I have learned. 
First of all, there have only been two people previously accused of
Zuriti'ili, and both have been found guilty.  Obviously, however,
Zuriti'ili must have occured at least three times in the history of
Ackanomic, since it had occured at least once since the writing of the
rule.  Now Zuriti'ili is a crime, and crime had only existed for a finite
period of time in Ackanomic,  I went to the history books to see how
"crime" had come about.  You may imagine my surprise when I discovered
these words "Malenkai introduced the concept of crime to Ackanomic" !!! 
Well, then the pieces all fell into place.  Zuriti'ili is the ultimate
crime.  No real knowledge of crime would be possible without knowledge of
Zuriti'ili.  Therefore, this court finds Malenkai guilty of the very first
instance of Zuriti'ili ever committed.  

Note:  In keeping with the traditions of previous Zuriti'ili related calls
for criminal justice, I have completely ignored the reasoning of the
Intiator.

Amendment to Rule:  "The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at
any given point in time, is a prime number."

Penalty:

This Court finds that, for being guilty of Zuriti'ili, Malenkai must make a
public apology of not less than 10 lines.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 23:14:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 453 (Vynd)

Vynd has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 453
  Subject: Empowering the Vulcan Party
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Ben (left the game)
2nd Judge: Vynd (selected Sep 02, 1997, 21:14h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Rule 1 does not empower the Vulcan Party to change the rules.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

Having been enlightened by ThinMan insistence of ambiguity,
I'd like to direct the judge's attention to the reasoning or CFJ 452. The
four cases presented are indeed intriguing. Two of them are trivially
false - the ones that claim that either the Vulcan Party, that is the
Organization whose name is Vulcan and owns a Big Tent and whose membership
at the time of invoking this CFJ (/dev/joe, ThinMan, Malenkai, Vynd), or
the Organization founded by Alfvaen with the name "The organization
vulcan" capitalization, by rule, notwithstanding, have the power to change
the rules while the other ones doesn't, ask us to choose a single
interpretation to an obviously ambigous refference, where neither
interpretation has any advantage over the other. The two other
interpretations may appear to balance each other out but they do not.
One suggests that both Organizations have the power to change the rules,
the other suggests that neither has the power to change rules. Of these
two, the former attempt to manipulate regulated constructs, ie,
Organizational Actions, in ways which are not present anywhere within the
rules, and the results of such attempt would be obviously paradoxical,
while the latter, will not allow any such manipulation, and by that virtue
is the least paradoxical not only of the two bilateral options, but also
of all the options presented so eloquently by ThinMan and refferenced
here.

It is also my opinion that a verdict of True on CFJ452 will strongly
suggest a verdict of true on this CFJ.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #281
*******************************