Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #283
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, September 3 1997     Volume 02 : Number 283

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:03:47 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 453 (Ben)

Vynd wrote:

[In response to NF]

> As the judge for CFJ 453, authored by you, I would have to disagree.
> The
> burden of proof is on you if it is on anyone, CFJs are not assumed to
> be
> TRUE (or FALSE) in my opinion.  Now, I have been trying to follow this
> thread between you and Thinman and frankly it started out bad and has
> since degenerated to the point that it is more or less
> incomprehensible.
> I would ask that, if you two, or anyone else, has anything to add the
> reasoning in the CFJ itself, they state it clearly, once and for all,
> now.
> You two can use your Bronze Torches and append it if you want.  But I
> don't want anyone to have any delusions about this case already being
> settled one way or the other.
> 
Very well.  I hereby invoke my privilege as a Bronze Torch holder
to add the following reasoning to CFJ 453:

The verdict of CFJ 452 will figure prominently in the following
reasoning so let me establish from the beginning that Rule 215 says,
in part,  "A statement verified (or nullified) by judgement
applies retroactively to any past game situation it may concern."  It
is thus fully appropriate to base an argument for the correct verdict
of CFJ 453 on the possible verdicts of CFJ 452, even though the results
of CFJ 452 have yet to be released.

The truth of this CFJ's statement depends largely on whether Rule 1
existed at all at the time that the CFJ was invoked.  If not, then
the CFJ statement is either True or Invalid.  No one seems to dispute
the fact that Rule 1 was created in the first place, so whether or not
it still existed at the time of CFJ 453's filing will be fully
determined by the verdict on CFJ 452: if False, then Alfvaen's
Organization "The organization Vulcan" succeeded in repealing rule 1
before this CFJ was released, with the above mentioned implication for
this CFJ.

Let us consider, then, the case in which CFJ 452 is ruled True.
Nothing else has occurred that would have caused rule 1 to cease to
exist, therefore it still did exist at the time of this CFJ's
invokation.  Moreover, a True verdict on CFJ 452 renders two of the
possible interpretations of rule 1 invalid, leaving only the following
two from among those presented in my CFJ 452 reasoning:

a) Rule 1 empowers [only] the Vulcan Party to change the rules.

b) Rule 1 does not empower anyone to change the rules.

I do not see any other viable alternative interpretations.  If we
accept, then, that the above two interpretations are the only remaining
possible ones, then I assert that interpretation (a) is clearly
favored over interpretation (b) by the text of rule 1, and hence that
this CFJ should be ruled False.

If this CFJ must be judged without reference to a verdict on CFJ 452,
then the situation is a bit stickier.  Then, in addition to the
alternatives presented above, there are also these possible
interpretations of rule 1:

c) Rule 1 empowers only Alfvaen's "The organization Vulcan" to change
   the rules.

d) Rule 1 empowers both organizations to change the rules.

One of the few things in this matter on which Niccolo and I agree is
that (d) is not a reasonable interpretation.  Rule 1 seems clear that
it is empowering a single organization.  Accepting (d) as correct,
then, implies that we are recognizing two disjoint interpretations
of rule 1 as being correct simultaneously.  This is not, in my opinion,
valid.

Now, rule 1 claims to empower a single organization.  There remains
some ambiguity about which organization it empowers, but it claims to
empower someone, thus I assert that taken individually, interpretations
(a) and (c) are each preferrable to interpretation (b).  If
interpretation (a) is preferrable to interpretation (b) in the absence
of interpretation (c) as a viable alternative then, I assert, (a)
remains preferrable to (b) when (c) is a viable alternative.  Niccolo
apparently does not agree that this principle is universally
applicable, claiming that if there is nothing to indicate one of (a)
and (c) over the other then neither may be selected and (b) must be
chosen by default.  Niccolo also asserts that interpretations (a) and
(c) in fact _are_ so equally balanced.

Rule 215, the only rule that directs how judges must come to a verdict,
says this:

	All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in
effect at 
	the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game
state
	at that time. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or
unclear on 
	the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall
consider
	currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in
	reaching a decision.

If, then, after considering game custom and the spirit of the game, a
judge is still faced with multiple interpretations which are each,
individually, equally in accordance with the rules with respect to the
current game state, the rules do not indicate a particular one of those
to prefer.  But (and here, I think, is where Niccolo and I diverge)
that does not mean that the judge may not choose one over the rest!
Quite the contrary; as the rules no longer guide the judge in that
situation, I claim that he is free to choose any interpretation he
likes from among the balanced alternatives.  This is creating game
custom where none existed before, but it has happened before in Acka's
history.  That this is possible is part of the purpose of the whole CFJ
process, in my opinion.

Now, as to interpretations (a) and (c) being equally balanced: the
rules do not require either of them to be correct.  Nowhere do the
rules stipulate that an instance of an entity's name in the rules
must be interpreted as a reference to that entity.  By custom that is
the usual interpretation.  In this case, however, that custom cannot
distinguish between (a) and (c).  What remains?  The Vulcan Party
predates the creation of Rule 1, whereas "The organization Vulcan"
postdates it.  Therefore there was a period during which rule 1 had,
I claim, a single, unambiguous interpretation: (a).  That that was once
the correct interpretation does not necessarilly mean that it must
continue to be, but it does set a precedent that can guide the judge
should there be no stronger indication.  As always, however, it comes
down to the Judge's opinion.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 19:19:25 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 453 (Ben)

As far as I see, the only thing ThinMan is trying to prove with these
arguments, as we both concede that the controversial matter which is at
the heart of this debate can at most be argued, rather than prove, is the
qualitative superiority of his statements over mine. Now, I have far too
much for respect for ThinMan to continue engaging in such a 'pre-debate'.
I presented my arguments. Later tonight I will sum them again and address
it to the assigned judge, and to the people of acka.

Niccolo Flychuck

 On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> You presented a series of claims without presenting any support for
> them, except insomuchas some of the claims may have had some bearing
> on the truth of others of those claims (indeed, some of the claims
> were, in fact, about the relationships between others of the claims).
> I have disputed most or all of those claims, and have presented
> arguments forthe opposite position in some of those cases.  It is
> apparent that Niccolo and I disagree on what constitutes an argument, or
> that I have missed or forgotten one or more of his messages, for
> I have yet to see arguments in support of any of the claims and
> assertions that I enumerated in my previous message.
> 
> As for "proof," neither of us can _prove_ anything in this matter, for
> it all comes down, in the end, to a matter of interpretation.  We
> have demonstrated, it appears, that the correct interpretation is not
> clear.  We obviously have differing opinions about which interpretation
> should be preferred.  We each have a vested interest in the
> interpretation we are backing.  I do not see much avenue for fruitful
> continuation of this debate, although I am willing to continue if you
> wish to do so.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> >  
> > 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:23:18 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Getting on with it

>> I don't think this will work, even if the Vulcan party has absolute
>> power.  It would be like saying, "Transfer three bonus votes from
>> Alfvaen to Balsamic Dragon."  I don't have three bonus votes; the
>> Treasury does not have A$14827.  I haven't managed to get a
>> calculation for the amount in the Treasury that I trust yet, but it
>> probably has more like A$3000.

>This has GOT to be incorrect. Either you've dropped a digit somewhere,
>or the previous Financier was doing some serious embezzling.

You're right, I do seem to have dropped a digit in there.  I apologize to
all concerned, it was nothing more than a thinko on my part.  Pay me no
attention.  I will somehow figure out a way of working out the precise
contents of the Treasury, if I have to figure it out player-by-player.
(I had tried to put code in my automatic PE page generator that would do
it, but when it kept changing even when no A$ had changed hands, I decided
it probably wasn't working.)  Tonight, I promise.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Heart:Magazine
Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:Me And My Little Brain
On the other hand, you have different fingers.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:30:02 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: The Pending IP

I would like to state here that the IP submitted against the Speaker is
not an official action of the Rebellion.  It was instigated solely by
Niccolo Flychuck, who may be a member of the Rebellion, and whose actions
may be motivated by the desire to overthrow the Evil Tyrannical Ruling
Elite, but it is far from being a unilaterally approved action.  There
are those among us who would not wish Malenkai's Speakerhood revoked,
and will likely vote against the IP despite Malenkai's actions in other
respects.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Heart:Magazine
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
May God bless and keep the censors...far away from us!

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:56:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prayer for Deliverance

I just heard (the original of) this song on the CD I'm listening to at
work today, and it reminded me that I'm supposed to post a prayer today.
I don't have time to think of a new one so I'm recycling my last one. 

They Might Be Chemicals

Now listen all you seekers, don't you try to tag along
Desulfurization said that there's no right or wrong
I do not know the answer; it's not in this song
And it might be buried long

These words are comfortably small
But it doesn't apply to all
Some are long like trinitrotoluene
Ackanomic pangrams confound
Like chemicals by the pound
Nasty stuff like tetramethyloctene
*'* ******  *'* ******  *'* ******

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 23:18:19 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

I believe the Cheez-Whiz has been completed. Bidding on it by public 
auction commences.

I am creating the following blueprint for a Jaran Llama, providing the 
necessary pc's. (one I think.)

A Jaran Llama is an amber bananawood llama slightly larger than the 
gates separating the city of Acka from the Wilds of Ackanomia. It has a 
hidden compartment capable of carrying a fair number of people.
If a Jaran Llama is owned by an organization and each member of that 
organization within a seven day period consents to join another 
organization, publicly stating, "I am crawling into the belly of the 
llama, that <name> will be open to me," where <name> is the name of an 
organization, (refered to here as the adversarial organization,) then 
the Jaran Llama will do the following:

a)It will cause each member of the organization that owns it to become a 
member of the adversarial organization.
b)It will transfer itself to the adversarial organization. 

If an unburied Jaran Llama exists when another Jaran Llama is created, 
the newly created Jaran Llama will place itself in a random buried 
treasure. If a Jaran Llama is found as part of buried treasure, any 
other unburied Jaran Llama will place itself in a random buried 
treasure.

 *two-star
*

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postmasterness

>Robert Sevin's email has been bouncing. I am exercising my privilege
>as Postmaster to move him to the digest versions of the mailing lists.

My e-mail has been bouncing? Ah, I know why... Can you put me back on the
main list?

Thanks,
Robert Sevin

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

Since there has been so much interest in CFCJ 143, and since the CotC
has been insanely busy as of late, the Court is taking the liberty of
forwarding the final appeal decision of CFCJ 143 to the main list.

Call for Criminal Judgement 143
    Subject: Zuriti'ili
  Initiator: Guy Fawkes
      Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:41h EDT)
   Judgment: TRUE
Appealed by: two-star, Niccolo Flychuck, Red Barn
   Judgment: FALSE

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.

two-star's Appeal Reasoning:

It is known that Zuriti'ili involves a prime number of entities, but
surely, occurances of Zuriti'ili are not entities. Neither the
initiator nor the judge has shown how a prime number of entities are
involved in this case. Also, it is not known how often Zuriti'ili
occured in the days of the ancients, but one must consider that it
must have occured many times in order to gain its present
notoriety. The ancients may not have had the same formal concept of
crime that we have today, but they knew Zuriti'ili when they saw
it. Therefore, due to the fact that the two previous occurances of
Zuriti'ili happened at separate times, and Zuriti'ili must have
occured more than 3 times, it is impossible that there could have been
a prime total number of occurances of Zuriti'ili in both cases.

Niccolo Flychuck's Appeal Reasoning:

This reasoning is absurd.  It is based on on half truths and innuendo,
conecpts which are unsuitable to the harf which we associate with
Zuriti'ili. If fact, the whole idea that Zuiti'ili should be used in
such a manner seems somewhat tasteless to me. The end does not justify
all means, by no means does it justify those means, nor is the meaning
of the justification clearly in the interest of the concept of crime
as we understand it in Acka.

Red Barn's Appeal Reasoning:

It is known that Zuriti'ili involves a prime number of entities, and
surely, occurences of Zuriti'ili are entities.  But the thing which
everyone has overlooked is this: if there are at any point in time a
prime number of occurrences of Zuriti'ili, then at the time the rule
was created, Zuriti'ili must have occurred at least *twice* - for one
is not a prime number.  Furthermore, these two occurrences must have
happened simultaneously.  Thus we know that Zuriti'ili can indeed be
performed concurrently, and the entire case must be re-tried.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Though Zuriti'ili has been found to be connected to prime numbers in
the past, the Court finds it difficult to believe that the number of
times it has been committed could always remain a prime number. While
not an impossible restriction, this would require a synchronicity of
ever-growing complexity, and the Court's own research has yet to
produce any evidence for such. (The Court believes that the original
judge has probably been given number theory texts masquerading as
ancient tomes, an event that occurs all too often.)

What the Court has discovered in its research, however, is a set of
criteria that is surprisingly applicable to this particular instance.
Upon examination, it is undeniable that what it describes has never
happened at the time this CFCJ was lodged.

Therefore, the Court has no choice but to overturn the original
verdict, with a penalty to the original judge of 1 point.

The new Zuriti'ili guideline, which contains the set of criteria
referred to above, is given in its entirety immediately following, and
continues to the end of this decision:

Zuriti'ili cannot be committed by the Speaker unless the following
events have occurred:

{{
   1. Rule 303 is amended by replacing every occurrence of the word
      "positive" with the word "nonnegative".
   2. Rule 0 is created with the title "Smart Bomb" and with the text
      "This rule takes precedence over every other rule. This rule
      takes precedence over any other rule that contains the text
      'rule of the Imperium'. Any Rule numbered 411.1 is immediately
      repealed, and any and all rules numbered between 1 and 99
      inclusive are repealed, after which this sentence is removed
      from this rule. If at any time there are no rules numbered
      between 1 and 99 inclusive, then at any time during the next
      four hours, the player whose Ackanomic name is breadbox, and
      who first joined Ackanomic on August 20 1996, is empowered to,
      as a public action, make any change whatsoever to the game state
      or the rules."
}}

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rule-harfing

Since it has become publicly knowable that CFCJ143 cannot be appealed
further, I am adding its guideline to the Zuriti'ili rule.

Hm. It seens that there are no more rules of the Imperium. And as a
result, I seem to have certain powers.

I am doing the following as public actions:

1. Repeal Rule 5001, "Concerning Government", if it exists. Repeal
Rule 411.1, if it exists.

2. In Rule 417, "Justices Rock", remove all occurences of the text "4)
An AOJ that nullifies a Senatorial decision either to accept or to
reject a Senate Resolution.", if any.

3. The amount of A$ in /dev/joe's account is set to A$844. The
necessary number of A$ are transferred to or from the Treasury to make
this happen.

4. Amend Rule 1005 to replace the text "If, after a suggestion is
made, all non-vacationing, non-gaoled members" with the text "If,
after a suggestion is made, all members".

4. Renumber Rule 0 to 100.

5. Amend Rule 303 to replace all occurrences of the word "nonnegative"
with "positive".

6. Repeal Rule 100.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:46:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: sorry, Alfvaen...

I am offering the following trade to GF Mini-storage, Inc.

I will give one Otzma Card type Scientist for a Day and one 
Otzma Card type Art Thief in exchange for two Otzma Cards type Go Fish, 
two Otzma Cards type Share My Expenses, and four bonus votes.

I suggest that GF Mini-storage accept this transaction, and I support 
this suggestion, and so it happens.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:35:40 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

>Zuriti'ili cannot be committed by the Speaker unless the following
>events have occurred:

>{{
>   1. Rule 303 is amended by replacing every occurrence of the word
>      "positive" with the word "nonnegative".
>   2. Rule 0 is created with the title "Smart Bomb" and with the text
>      "This rule takes precedence over every other rule. This rule
>      takes precedence over any other rule that contains the text
>      'rule of the Imperium'. Any Rule numbered 411.1 is immediately
>      repealed, and any and all rules numbered between 1 and 99
>      inclusive are repealed, after which this sentence is removed
>      from this rule. If at any time there are no rules numbered
>      between 1 and 99 inclusive, then at any time during the next
>      four hours, the player whose Ackanomic name is breadbox, and
>      who first joined Ackanomic on August 20 1996, is empowered to,
>      as a public action, make any change whatsoever to the game state
>      or the rules."
>}}

Bravo!  Bravo!  Bravissimo!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Luba:Secrets & Sins
Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:Me And My Little Brain
It's easier to curse the candle than to light the darkness.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:37:31 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: sorry, Alfvaen...

>I am offering the following trade to GF Mini-storage, Inc.

>I will give one Otzma Card type Scientist for a Day and one 
>Otzma Card type Art Thief in exchange for two Otzma Cards type Go Fish, 
>two Otzma Cards type Share My Expenses, and four bonus votes.

>I suggest that GF Mini-storage accept this transaction, and I support 
>this suggestion, and so it happens.

Phew!  With a subject line like that, I was afraid that you'd hit me with
a BWG Laser or something.  :-)  With sufficient cutting-and-pasting, the
above transaction shouldn't be too hard to put into the entitylog...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Luba:Secrets & Sins
Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:Me And My Little Brain
This is where we drop off wood. Big truck, big wood. Big posibility for accident

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:31:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

The Honourable Justice breadbox wrote:

> Since there has been so much interest in CFCJ 143, and since the CotC
> has been insanely busy as of late, the Court is taking the liberty of
> forwarding the final appeal decision of CFCJ 143 to the main list.

[verdict of CFCJ 143]
 
I don't think so.  The verdict becomes official when distributed by
the CotC.  From rule 413:

> (c) to receive verdicts from Judges and other judicial entities, and to
> distribute the verdicts publically, at which time they become official. 

A cruise thru the e-mail archive will also support this interpretation
in the case where it is unclear, which it is not.

I'd repost it now, but I have to hit the driving range for a big golf
tournament I'm in tomorrow.  I hope the appeal limit or some other factor
of the game state doesn't change while I'm gone :)

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:35:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Since there has been so much interest in CFCJ 143, and since the CotC
> has been insanely busy as of late, the Court is taking the liberty of
> forwarding the final appeal decision of CFCJ 143 to the main list.
> 
> Call for Criminal Judgement 143
>     Subject: Zuriti'ili
>   Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>       Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:41h EDT)
>    Judgment: TRUE
> Appealed by: two-star, Niccolo Flychuck, Red Barn
>    Judgment: FALSE
> 
> 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.

> 
> Supreme Court's Reasoning:
> 
> Though Zuriti'ili has been found to be connected to prime numbers in
> the past, the Court finds it difficult to believe that the number of
> times it has been committed could always remain a prime number. While
> not an impossible restriction, this would require a synchronicity of
> ever-growing complexity, and the Court's own research has yet to
> produce any evidence for such. (The Court believes that the original
> judge has probably been given number theory texts masquerading as
> ancient tomes, an event that occurs all too often.)
> 
> What the Court has discovered in its research, however, is a set of
> criteria that is surprisingly applicable to this particular instance.
> Upon examination, it is undeniable that what it describes has never
> happened at the time this CFCJ was lodged.
> 
> Therefore, the Court has no choice but to overturn the original
> verdict, with a penalty to the original judge of 1 point.
> 
> The new Zuriti'ili guideline, which contains the set of criteria
> referred to above, is given in its entirety immediately following, and
> continues to the end of this decision:
> 
> Zuriti'ili cannot be committed by the Speaker unless the following
> events have occurred:
> 
> {{
>    1. Rule 303 is amended by replacing every occurrence of the word
>       "positive" with the word "nonnegative".
>    2. Rule 0 is created with the title "Smart Bomb" and with the text
>       "This rule takes precedence over every other rule. This rule
>       takes precedence over any other rule that contains the text
>       'rule of the Imperium'. Any Rule numbered 411.1 is immediately
>       repealed, and any and all rules numbered between 1 and 99
>       inclusive are repealed, after which this sentence is removed
>       from this rule. If at any time there are no rules numbered
>       between 1 and 99 inclusive, then at any time during the next
>       four hours, the player whose Ackanomic name is breadbox, and
>       who first joined Ackanomic on August 20 1996, is empowered to,
>       as a public action, make any change whatsoever to the game state
>       or the rules."
> }}
> 

This distribution of the verdict directly by the breadbox was probably not
official.  The CotC rule says that it is the duty of the CotC to
distribute verdicts delivered by "Judges and other judicial entities... at
which point they become official."  So this public posting was nothing
more than a widely reported delivery of the verdict to the CotC, who must
now distribute it before it goes into effect.  Obviously, all of the
actions which breadbox attempted in the post following this one failed.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:06:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Since there has been so much interest in CFCJ 143, and since the CotC
> > has been insanely busy as of late, the Court is taking the liberty of
> > forwarding the final appeal decision of CFCJ 143 to the main list.
> > 
> > Call for Criminal Judgement 143
> >     Subject: Zuriti'ili
> >   Initiator: Guy Fawkes
> >       Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected Aug 28, 1997, 19:41h EDT)
> >    Judgment: TRUE
> > Appealed by: two-star, Niccolo Flychuck, Red Barn
> >    Judgment: FALSE
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> > 
> > Supreme Court's Reasoning:
> > 
> > Though Zuriti'ili has been found to be connected to prime numbers in
> > the past, the Court finds it difficult to believe that the number of
> > times it has been committed could always remain a prime number. While
> > not an impossible restriction, this would require a synchronicity of
> > ever-growing complexity, and the Court's own research has yet to
> > produce any evidence for such. (The Court believes that the original
> > judge has probably been given number theory texts masquerading as
> > ancient tomes, an event that occurs all too often.)
> > 
> > What the Court has discovered in its research, however, is a set of
> > criteria that is surprisingly applicable to this particular instance.
> > Upon examination, it is undeniable that what it describes has never
> > happened at the time this CFCJ was lodged.
> > 
> > Therefore, the Court has no choice but to overturn the original
> > verdict, with a penalty to the original judge of 1 point.
> > 
> > The new Zuriti'ili guideline, which contains the set of criteria
> > referred to above, is given in its entirety immediately following, and
> > continues to the end of this decision:
> > 
> > Zuriti'ili cannot be committed by the Speaker unless the following
> > events have occurred:
> > 
> > {{
> >    1. Rule 303 is amended by replacing every occurrence of the word
> >       "positive" with the word "nonnegative".
> >    2. Rule 0 is created with the title "Smart Bomb" and with the text
> >       "This rule takes precedence over every other rule. This rule
> >       takes precedence over any other rule that contains the text
> >       'rule of the Imperium'. Any Rule numbered 411.1 is immediately
> >       repealed, and any and all rules numbered between 1 and 99
> >       inclusive are repealed, after which this sentence is removed
> >       from this rule. If at any time there are no rules numbered
> >       between 1 and 99 inclusive, then at any time during the next
> >       four hours, the player whose Ackanomic name is breadbox, and
> >       who first joined Ackanomic on August 20 1996, is empowered to,
> >       as a public action, make any change whatsoever to the game state
> >       or the rules."
> > }}
> > 
> 
> This distribution of the verdict directly by the breadbox was probably not
> official.  The CotC rule says that it is the duty of the CotC to
> distribute verdicts delivered by "Judges and other judicial entities... at
> which point they become official."  So this public posting was nothing
> more than a widely reported delivery of the verdict to the CotC, who must
> now distribute it before it goes into effect.  Obviously, all of the
> actions which breadbox attempted in the post following this one failed.
> 
> 
>                                     - Vynd
> 
> [email-masked]
> 

An officer's having a duty merely obligates them to perform it, which 
means that the CotC is still required too repost the verdict, and this 
argument bears no merit as to which posting shall alter the game state.  
Malenkai's objection in his prior post addresses the true issue here, 
though I will have to do more research before commenting on the 
correctness of his objection.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 19:48:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> An officer's having a duty merely obligates them to perform it, which
> means that the CotC is still required too repost the verdict, and this
> argument bears no merit as to which posting shall alter the game state.
> Malenkai's objection in his prior post addresses the true issue here,
> though I will have to do more research before commenting on the
> correctness of his objection.

The rule I quoted states when a verdict affects the game state; its the
last phrase of section c).

Malenkai
really going to the golf course right now

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:51:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Relaxing, Reloading, and Getting Ahead

I am going to the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication, where I am 
undergoing surgery to receive yet another Extra Head, in the hopes that 
new insights found in my increased cranial capacity might hold the key to 
either busting the coup or answering the sticky judicial questions my 
left head's paranoiac tendencies are informing me that the Supreme Court 
is about to receive.

Guy Fawkes
Acka's only practicing tricephalicist

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 21:58:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[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.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:50:04 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 143 Decision

>
>Zuriti'ili cannot be committed by the Speaker unless the following
>events have occurred:
>
>{{
>   1. Rule 303 is amended by replacing every occurrence of the word
>      "positive" with the word "nonnegative".
>   2. Rule 0 is created with the title "Smart Bomb" and with the text
>      "This rule takes precedence over every other rule. This rule
>      takes precedence over any other rule that contains the text
>      'rule of the Imperium'. Any Rule numbered 411.1 is immediately
>      repealed, and any and all rules numbered between 1 and 99
>      inclusive are repealed, after which this sentence is removed
>      from this rule. If at any time there are no rules numbered
>      between 1 and 99 inclusive, then at any time during the next
>      four hours, the player whose Ackanomic name is breadbox, and
>      who first joined Ackanomic on August 20 1996, is empowered to,
>      as a public action, make any change whatsoever to the game state
>      or the rules."
>}}

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this move.  Kudos to breadbox!
All hail the savior of Ackanomic in this thread :)

Mr Lunatic "Almost Wishes He Wasn't Dead" Fringe

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:00:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vive la revolution!!

Malenkai's probably right about the Zuriti'ili surf, though I haven't 
searched all the higher precedence Judgment rules for a counterexample, 
and right now, I'm too exhausted to try.  Those with fresher minds are 
encouraged to look in my stead.

I have two more tricks up my sleeve.  The first one I'll pull tomorrow, 
though its legality is based mostly on the implicit game customs of 
longtime practice and not really in the Rules.  It'll be fun (for me, at 
least) even if it doesn't work.  The second one gives me a headache when 
I even try to think about it -- I know how to do it, but the implications 
are, well, not exactly destructive, but just plain strange, especially if 
you're a fan of the excluded middle.  I may or may not execute this plan.

Any other counter coup attempts are welcome -- I'm running down to the 
bottom of an entire summer's worth of imagination (to be honest, many of 
the tactics I've tried against the dictators are variations on my own 
aspirations to ultimate power).  If anyone wants help executing or 
proofreading a scam, feel free to ask.

Should the Vulcans step down voluntarily, or at least appear to if they 
haven't been forcibly removed already, I already know how to kill any 
premanent marks they leave behind with a single proposal, or at most two 
or three.  This, however, is sort of the consolation prize.

Guy Fawkes
any more bright ideas?

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 22:16:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vive la revolution!!

> Malenkai's probably right about the Zuriti'ili surf, though I haven't
> searched all the higher precedence Judgment rules for a counterexample,

I also do not think the "guidelines" as referred to in that rule actually
become part of the rules.  Expect a CFJ on the matter at some point.

> (to be honest, many of the tactics I've tried against the dictators are
>  variations on my own  aspirations to ultimate power).

> any more bright ideas?

Yeah, I have alot to say about this, but I do not think this is the time 
or place.  I have spoken at length on the matter privately, though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:06:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Getting on with it

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Malenkai 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.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

With some reluctance, I approve of this action.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:00:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Referee

So, is anyone going to referee the Ghost duel between me and ThinMan?  The
duties are pretty minimal...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Richard Thompson:Rumour And Sigh
Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:Me And My Little Brain
A depth-first search may provide unusual rewards.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:11:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: DC bS2

> I do not dispute breadbox's victory here, despite my claims below. :)  As
> an official game of double Crash, and one which was not a duel, breadbox
> gets an A$25 prize.

We still have to wait for three days in case someone can find an error.
Then breadbox will have his reward...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Richard Thompson:Rumour And Sigh
Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:Me And My Little Brain
He flung himself on his horse and rode madly off in all directions.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #283
*******************************