Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #290
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, September 6 1997      Volume 02 : Number 290

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 00:02:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

Archie Leach has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 458
  Subject: Rules and Guidelines
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Archie Leach (selected Sep 06, 1997, 00:02h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Adding a guideline via the method described in rule 719 does
not change the rules.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I do not have a strong case here, but I do think TRUE is the
correct verdict.  I believe the confusion stems from the 
difference between the rules and the rules document, a distinction
that has all been lost in the era of superb web-harfing.

First of all, this is definately going to be a game custom/
spirit of the game argument, specifically based on the proper
rendering of the term "guideline" as used in rule 719, so
I would like to digress and speak of the subject of establishing
game custom for a second.

One could argue that CFCJ 143 established the game custom that
adding a guideline to rule 719 changed the rules, as that was
the attempted action of the Supreme Court.  That would be true if
that happened a week or two ago without opposition to that 
interpretation, but I publically [sorry Alfvaen, its a word]
questioned that interpretation within a reasonable amount of
time; indeed, this CFJ is within about 6 hours of the verdict
being publically knowable.  This "grace period" was a big deal
around the time of CFJ 157, and there is game custom that a 
grace period to  challenge actions based on interpretations
exists, read the CFJ archives.  Custom is silent on the length
of that grace period, but it certainly exists.  If it didn't,
we would be in a dangerous position of the possibility of
players just going through the rules choosing questionable
renderings for unclear wording without chance of refute.
Clearly, the way we've been playing the game for the last 18
months, and the way CFJs have worked, have disallowed game
custom to be established in this way, just by being first,
assuming the challenge came within a reasonable amount of
time.  Note: this is in reference to *implicit* game custom;
I believe *explicit* game custom works the exact opposite
way (qv CFJ 168, and others where it has been applied).

Now, back to the argument.  The rules have allowed for certain
"furniture" to be attached to them, with such furniture not
being part of the rules itself.  The guidelines of rule 719
are an example of this furniture.  Why do I say that?  It is
really just because its obvious to me, and likewise, it is 
obvious to me that the rule is not actually amended when these
guidelines are delivered; they are put below rule 719 *for the
convienence of the judge who has to rule on a rule 719 style 
CFCJ* -- they are put in the rules *document*, not the rules.
I realise this argument looks sort of lame, but bear with me.

First I have to establish unclarity in rule 719, and then must
establish that there is a preponderance of the extant game 
custom in favor of my position, or, in the absence of game custom,
establish that the spirit of the game favors my position (this
is all covered by rule 215, and this procedure has been followed
in other game custom CFJs).

Establishing unclarity is sometimes easy, sometimes difficult.
It is difficult here.  I think most people would agree that 
unclarity has been establised in the case of "the organization 
Vulcan", but is it sufficient for one initiator of a CFJ to say:
'that is unclear to me', and thus establish clarity?  I think that 
is unreasonable.  However, the fact of the matter is that 
"guideline" in rule 719 *was* clear to me, but clear in the opposite
direction than assumed by CFCJ 143!  The Judge will have to consider
the wording of rule 719, the rest of this argument, and any other
public comment in order to form an opinion of whether "guideline" in
rule 719 is unclear, or whether it clearly favors my position or the
position of CFCJ 143.  I certainly do not think it is clear that
the rule is amended just because it says the text is added to the
list of guidelines below, if we take that to mean the rules document
as opposed to the rules.

Why is it obvious that I'm right, and that game custom and spirit of
the game favor my position?  This is getting long, so I am just going
to start listing stuff:

The rule goes out of its way to use the term "guideline" in the first
place.  Customarily English usage renders the term "guideline" as 
something distinct from rules when used in the context of rules; generally
something weaker than rules without the force of rule.

Part of the rule says: "the guideline may not conflict with the existing
guidelines and other rules".  If the "existing guidelines" became part
of the rules, then they would not exist as guidelines for this sentence
to refer to them as such.  Clearly this sentence again makes the distinction
between the rules, and the fact that those things that were once guidelines
*now* "exist" as guidelines, not as part of the rules.  It is unreasonble
linguistically to render that they are both guidelines *and* part of the
rules, thus they are just guidelines seperate from the rules.

There are other notable examples of furniture that are part of the rules
document, for convienence, but not part of the rules themselves.  Examples
are described in rule 301 (Titles), 303 (numbers), 305 (names and revison
history), and 307 (revision number).  What if I changed my name to
{{Malenkai becomes a dictator}}, or created a rule with that title?  Would
it become part of the actual rules?  I think game custom has established 
that rules can add stuff to rules without it become part of the actual
rules; establised that it was possible, anyway.

The judge may also want to check proposal 2010 (the original form of rule
2010, now 210), for a similar situation, that may or may not be applicable.

Assuming unclarity has been established, and there is no game custom
either way, spirit of the game remains.  To me it is clearly in the spirit of
the game that the guidelines are only tacked onto the rules document at the
end of rule 719 for convienence, and not meant to part of the actual rule.

I figured to most it was obvious that that rule worked as I claim when it
was adopted, as no one claimed about the ability to add arbitrary text to
the rule, and then the meaning was lost in the player turnover.  Damn that's
wimpy, but that is what I think really happened, but who knows :)

That is all.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 00:07:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 453 Verdict

CFJ 453 has been judged FALSE.

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: FALSE

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.

Vynd's Reasoning:

I agree with Thinman (and apparently, with Niccollo) that there are 4
possible interpretations of Rule 1.  I won't restate them again.  I also
agree that the Rule is refering to only one organization.  I do not agree
with the position that the rule does not empower any organization at all.
It is indisputable that the rule empowers something, the ambiguity is
exactly what is it that it means by the phrase "The organization Vulcan".

So the real question here is which of two organizations, one the Political
Party named Vulcan, the other an organization with the name The
organization Vulcan, does the Rule empower.  The Rules have nothing to say
on this issue, so far as I (and several others) have been able to
discover.  I must therefore turn to game custom and the spirit of the
game.

The only thing I have beena ble to find in game custom that seems relevant
is the idea that the Rules should be interpreted in a manner consistent
with the common usage of the English language.  I believe that Rule 1 is
phrased in such a manner that, as English is commonly used, it should be
interpreted to mean that the organization which is named Vulcan is what it
is empowering, not something which is known by the phrase "The
organization Vulcan."  Think about it.  If someone who had never seen or
heard of Ackanomic, but was a native speaker of English, were to read Rule
1, you can be sure that this is the manner in which it would be
interpreted.  I also feel that this interpretation is in the spirit of the
game.  If we cannot mention something in the rules without defining it
beyond any possibility of ambiguity, then much of the Ruleset become
unintelligable, or at least uninterpretable.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 00:31:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt

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

The vote was 6-1 in favor of burm the witch.

Count Tabula

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:34:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Dangling(Attn: Whiz)

> 1) Did Guy Fawkes read from a spell book of chorg yesterday?  If
> so, did any move in it involve GF Mini-Storage?  Sorry, I seemed
> to misplaced an e-mail from him deleted by mistake.

All the entity-harfing I did yesterday involved a transfer of Otzma Cards
between GF Mini-storage and Guy Fawkes.  No Chorging was involved.

> 2) All of acka is dangling again by my count.

<sigh>  I was afraid of that.  Obviously I should have critiqued the faulty
Prayers sooner.

Okay, listen up, people!  If you want your house reattached, let me know!
I can't do it otherwise!  And it's 17 days to Tornado time!  Winged
Squadron(of which I am no longer), organize yourself!  I am going to
my own house, and I am placing the Gravitational Monopole thereon, and with
the utmost certainty that this darned thing is going to work, I press the
red button.

On the principle that picking a specific player to ask might work better
than waiting for someone out of a crowd, I will pick someone at random to
address:  Whiz!  Do you want me to reattach your house?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Heart:Little Queen
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
I was up until three in the morning fixing the moon.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:38:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

I am not going to quote Malenkai's copious reasoning on this subject.  I
would just like to mention that, assuming Vulcan's abdication actions
actually happened, this would be trivialy true, as the rule was altered
somewhat and the conditions are no longer actually appended directly to
the ruleset.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:41:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling(Attn: Whiz)

Ooh, ooh, reattach my house please!

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:43:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestion

> > If and when the other three members of Vulcan approve of this action,
> > Vulcan will no longer be in power is any of the current game threads.
> > At that time I would encourage two-star to retract Proposal 2287, if
> > he still can. Otherwise, Rule 1005 will need to be re-proposed.

> Actually, I rather liked proposal 2287.  In fact, I regret not nuking
> the entire organizational rules while a dictator ;-).  I do intend to
> propose a wipeout of all those rules at some point -- I am sort of
> against the concept (but not strongly), but *really* think the 
> implementation needs an overhaul.  Given the problems in my mind, I
> think its better to wipeout and start from scratch rather than try
> to patch the existing framework.

The problem with nuking the entire existing framework is that it's nice to
have a new framework to replace it.  I like the idea of organizations as a
Rule Suite, where each Org can have its own rule, but I personally
wouldn't trust myself to put it together.

If one _was_ to put it together, it should be done in such a way as to
leave Churches and Parties, at least, at least in existence, if not
functional, during the changeover.

But I think there is some merit in the idea; Organizations(and Blueprints,
why not)can end up like Games & Contests, as members of a Rule Suite to
which one does not necessarily need a Proposal to add something.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Heart:Little Queen
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Death - 30,000,000,000 people can't be wrong.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 00:49:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

> I am not going to quote Malenkai's copious reasoning on this subject.  I
> would just like to mention that, assuming Vulcan's abdication actions
> actually happened, this would be trivialy true, as the rule was altered
> somewhat and the conditions are no longer actually appended directly to
> the ruleset.

Yeah, I thought about that, but I conceived the CFJ before that, and
wanted to write it anyway.  Prolly should have waited, but it was
all in my mind now.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 01:08:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 453 Verdict

CFJ 453 has been judged FALSE.  [please ignore anything that looked like
a posting of CFJ 453, thx to Vynd for reminding me to put the BT reasoning
on it]

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: FALSE

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.

Vynd's Reasoning:

I agree with Thinman (and apparently, with Niccollo) that there are 4
possible interpretations of Rule 1.  I won't restate them again.  I also
agree that the Rule is refering to only one organization.  I do not agree
with the position that the rule does not empower any organization at all.
It is indisputable that the rule empowers something, the ambiguity is
exactly what is it that it means by the phrase "The organization Vulcan".

So the real question here is which of two organizations, one the Political
Party named Vulcan, the other an organization with the name The
organization Vulcan, does the Rule empower.  The Rules have nothing to say
on this issue, so far as I (and several others) have been able to
discover.  I must therefore turn to game custom and the spirit of the
game.

The only thing I have beena ble to find in game custom that seems relevant
is the idea that the Rules should be interpreted in a manner consistent
with the common usage of the English language.  I believe that Rule 1 is
phrased in such a manner that, as English is commonly used, it should be
interpreted to mean that the organization which is named Vulcan is what it
is empowering, not something which is known by the phrase "The
organization Vulcan."  Think about it.  If someone who had never seen or
heard of Ackanomic, but was a native speaker of English, were to read Rule
1, you can be sure that this is the manner in which it would be
interpreted.  I also feel that this interpretation is in the spirit of the
game.  If we cannot mention something in the rules without defining it
beyond any possibility of ambiguity, then much of the Ruleset become
unintelligable, or at least uninterpretable.

ThinMan's Bronze Torch reasoning:

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.

Niccolo Flychuck's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

I'd like to add my own Bronch Torch reasoning, and let the record show
that it should follow ThinMan's:
The fact is that ThinMan agrees that the intepretation of Rule 1 is
ambigous, anbd has stated that the very existence of such a strong debate
support this amiguity.
We both appear to agree that Rule 1 can't empower both  Organizations. Our
reasons may not be identical. I argue this on the grounds that Rule 1
claims to empower a single Organization, and there is no precedent in the
acka rules that reference toa specific to a single specific entity is
interpreted as a refference to several entities each of which may suit the
refference by themselves. Also Organizational Action is a regulated
action, and the action here the action of a single ORganization, to
interpret this as the action or two seperate Organization would require a
kind of ORganization action not allowed by the rules.

I further argue that the refference does not resolve to the name of a
single Organization, and yes, the Judge has the priviledge of instituting
Game Custom here, and since the refference does not resolve to a
refference to a single Organization, both the Vulcan Party, and Alfvaen's
Organization Vulcan being reasonalbe interpretations of the text of the
rule, its effect is the same effect that rule would have had if the
refference was to a nonexistent Organization, which could also not be
resolved as a refference to a single Organization. 
Whether the actual number of entities that can be the entities
refferencedby this rule is 0,2, or 20 is immaterial. It isn't 1, and that
the important point.
That is why I argue that this CFJ should be judged True.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:21:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess-Umpire

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I hadn't realized until I checked that Chess-Umpire is a Functional office,
> so it falls to me rather than Malenkai to fill it...:-)
> 
> I am hereby announcing a Nomination for Chess-Umpire.  Reply privately to
> me if you wish to hold this position.
> 
> (Inthe meantime, I seem to be Acting Chess-Umpire, unless anyone else
> wants to be in the interim...I know little about Party Chess, so I welcome
> volunteers.  :-)
> 

I'd like to point out that this is an Optional Office, so you're not
required to fill it's duties. This effectivly suspends the game of
PartyChess until the Office is filled. 
I still have to look up the status of the Office of Ben. The board was not
updated after his move, and subsequent quitting of ackanomic.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:30:51 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Unofficial Hearing

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Robert Shimmin wrote:

> 	if you wish Rule 1 to be utterly obliterated

Since it's unofficial, I'll reply that I simply wish to see R1 utterly
obeliterated.

However,

> 
> Castration would suffice nicely, thank you.
> 	if you would like to see the last paragraph alone removed
> 
> Why did the Germans have to tear down all those pretty swastikas?
> 	if you wouldlike to see Rule 1 remain

Please let us keep such refferences out of this game, and out of this
mailing list.

Uri Bruck

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 09:44:51 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2292

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 2292
> > Otzma Reform
> 
> > The default F-Designation is Normal.
> 
> I hope a proposal is coming soon to set the F-Designation on
> some of the existing cards...
> 
> Malenkai

I intentionally left it out of this proposal, so as to not have  the
machering of specific types of Otzma Cards ( and the judge of ThinMan's
CFJ might note the explicit use of type in this rule ) weight the vote too
much either way.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> 2) All of acka is dangling again by my count.

I am heading over to the Supreme Court and waiting for two winged
players to join me.

(Yeah, you know where my loyalties lie.)

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:47:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 1) Did Guy Fawkes read from a spell book of chorg yesterday?  If
> so, did any move in it involve GF Mini-Storage?  Sorry, I seemed
> to misplaced an e-mail from him deleted by mistake.

I have not read from the SboC this week.  Nor have I accessed my org 
since the Sorry, Alfvaen... message.

GF

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 08:04:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 458
>   Subject: Rules and Guidelines
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: Archie Leach (selected Sep 06, 1997, 00:02h EDT)
> Judgement:

If Vulcan's abdication actions occurred yesterday, this is trivially 
TRUE.  If not, let it be known that this loophole was formulated, 
justified not in a game custom or spirit argument, as the initiator seems 
to believe is necessary to decide this, but on the text of R346, which 
states that _any_ Rule text in double curlies is subject to 
self-deletion, and on R719, which states that the list of guidelines is 
"below."  In practice, this means immediately following on the page.  
Additionally, the wording of the Proposal that created Zuriti'ili 
included the two original Guidelines as part of the Rule text.  It 
requires real imagination to justify an interpretation that adding 
elements to a list that is part of the Rules results in the additional 
elements not being part of the Rules.

Of course, if the Judge finds a powerful counterexample to this, I would 
be very interested to see it.

GF

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:49:53 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re acka white bread

> "Why did the Germans have to tear down all those pretty swastikas?"

Karma asks: I feel sorry for Whom wrote this racist tripe, curse you!

> I am heading over to the Supreme Court and waiting for two winged
players to join me.
 I'm afluttering along with you.
- - Karma

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:51:12 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka 

Rebellion's over!
- - Karma

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 11:05:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

> If not, let it be known that this loophole was formulated,
> justified not in a game custom or spirit argument, as the initiator seems
> to believe is necessary to decide this, but on the text of R346, which
> states that _any_ Rule text in double curlies is subject to
> self-deletion, and on R719, which states that the list of guidelines is
> "below." 

My argument has nothing to do with the curlies, but rests on the premise
that the guidelines are not part of the rule text, therefore what rule 346 
says means nothing.  My examples with titles and authors should have made
that clear.  I also admitted that I do not have a strong argument the way
this game is played, except that it is obvious that guidelines are not
rules, and in particular, the guidelines of rule 719 are seperate from
rule 719, and the blurriness comes from the blurriness in distinction
between rules and the web page.  BTW, proposal 2010 is a similar situation;
remember when I discussed the epic poem entitled {{malenkai becomes a 
dictator}} :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:12:56 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka majordomo

I tried to unsubscribe (acka-rebellion) via([email-masked]) all
nice and serious like. 
However it gave me a sytem undeliverable message and was hoping Breadbox,
that you may confirm if it worked or not. 
TIA - Karma

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 11:40:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling(Attn: Whiz)

> Okay, listen up, people!  If you want your house reattached, let me know!
> I can't do it otherwise!  And it's 17 days to Tornado time!  Winged
> Squadron(of which I am no longer), organize yourself!  I am going to
> my own house, and I am placing the Gravitational Monopole thereon, and with
> the utmost certainty that this darned thing is going to work, I press the
> red button.

This works.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 20:54:09 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > 2) All of acka is dangling again by my count.
> 
> I am heading over to the Supreme Court and waiting for two winged
> players to join me.
> 
> (Yeah, you know where my loyalties lie.)
> 
> breadbox

I am also flying over to the Supreme Court to help reattach it.

**two-star

no, silly, the *other* Supreme Court!

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 12:12:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> 3) Reminder to myself to do the Museum

mr cmm receives the bonus vote for september.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 12:21:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ archive

I regret that I will not have time to do the CFJ archive.
Doing that would cut into the little time I actually have
to *play* the game.  Perhaps there are other active players
who aren't doing acka work now, but have the time and resources
to maintain this web page.  It looks like about 1.2meg+.  I have
all the CFJs saved that are not on wilma currently.

The CFJ archive is a really important part of acka, and I hope
someone can step up and do it.  I'm sorry that I cannot at this
time.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:25:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

Malenkai wrote:
> 2) All of acka is dangling again by my count.

Except Vulcan Headquarters, which was built after the flood.
At least now we know for certain that Cow Town is dangling. :-)

I am purchasing a set of wings from the AIoGR for A$100.
(We need all the winged players we can get right now.)
I am going to the supreme court, where we now have three winged players,
and helping them reattach it.  I am them returning to my dangling house.

/dev/joe
For some reason, I can't get this idea out of my head:
Otzma Card of Type Earthbind: Play on a winged player; all wings that player
owns are destroyed and e receives two points of damage.  Points of damage are
non-tradeable nameless entities.  Counteraction: the affected player loses
two points of damage, and as many sets of wings as were destroyed by Earthbind
are created in eir possession.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:55:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling(Attn: Whiz)

> This works.

Okay.  Since Vynd asked me so nicely, I'll go over to his house too, and
knowing that even the former Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite are powerless to
harness the forces that I manipulate so easily and flawlessly, I press the
button.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Mike Oldfield:The Killing Fields Soundtrack
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
You break fingers, I'll break thumbs.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:54:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> Except Vulcan Headquarters, which was built after the flood.
> At least now we know for certain that Cow Town is dangling. :-)

Hopefully not for much longer.  I hereby announce my intent to submit a
Proposal to repeal it, since I've never seen it used...

> I am purchasing a set of wings from the AIoGR for A$100.
> (We need all the winged players we can get right now.)
> I am going to the supreme court, where we now have three winged players,
> and helping them reattach it.  I am them returning to my dangling house.

I presume y'all mean "The Courthouse"...  It has now been reattached; now
we just have to figure out which of the four winged players arrived after
it got reattached and is thus not tired out for the next three days...

(Shouldn't the Map-Harfer keep track of this stuff?)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Mike Oldfield:The Killing Fields Soundtrack
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Thank you for your cooperation and vice versa.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 13:17:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> Hopefully not for much longer.  I hereby announce my intent to submit a
> Proposal to repeal it, since I've never seen it used...

Gee, I proposed its repeal twice and people got huffy :)  IAC,
hopefully you will have more success at getting this, and other
deadwood, out of the rules (again, nothing personal, some of
my rules are deadwood too) :)

Malenkai
hoping you weren't referring to Vulcan headquarters...

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 13:21:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling(Attn: Whiz)

> Okay.  Since Vynd asked me so nicely, I'll go over to his house too, and
> knowing that even the former Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite are powerless to
> harness the forces that I manipulate so easily and flawlessly, I press the
> button.

This works.  Someone take out the random part of this -- argh! :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> I am also flying over to the Supreme Court to help reattach it.
> 
> **two-star
> 
> no, silly, the *other* Supreme Court!

"Oh, very droll."

Heh. The first three players to announce that they were going to help
attach the Supreme Court were breadbox, Karma, and two-star. So they
will be unavailable for more building reattachments until Tuesday
afternoon. /dev/joe is still available now for reattachment duty.

As for the Gravitational Monopole, perhaps to make life easier on
Malenkai, Alfvaen could accumulate a list of buildings to attach, and
Malenkai could roll them all at once (or use the dice server)?

In any case, I give Alfvaen my permission to enter my house.

breadbox
and whatever happened to the other Monopole?

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #290
*******************************