Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #296
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Tuesday, September 9 1997      Volume 02 : Number 296

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:20:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: off cfj inel

  If I am on it, and I can do so, I am taking myself off the CFH
Ineligibility List.

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 16:41:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 458 Verdict

CFJ 458 has been judged TRUE in the thread where rule 719 was amended,
and FALSE in the other thread.

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: Thread Dependent

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.

Archie Leaches's Reasoning:

Rule 719 amended thread:

This is trivially decided as Vulcan's abdication modified Rule 719 to
delete the guidelines so contained and place them in a separate document
under control of the Clerk of the Courts.

Since the Zuriti'ili Guidelines are not part of the Rule text under any
interpretation, there is no other possible verdict.

Rule 719 not amended thread:

This one gets a little complicated.

I don't find the argument that Rule 719 delineates the listed Zuriti'ili
guidelines as a separate document included for convenience to be valid.
The use of the term "guideline" in Rule 719 is clearly not excluding said
guidelines from the text of the Rule.  Rule 719 states "the guideline may
not conflict with the existing guidelines and other rules"; this is an
inclusive use of the conjunction "and", and as a result the statement
*includes* the existing guidelines as part of the Rules.

The existence of other so-called rule "furniture" is not relevant to this
case.  Rules 301 "Proposal and Rule Titles", 305 "For Personal Glory..."
[Proposal attribution] and 307 "Revision Numbers" all describe ancilliary
information included with a Rule that, if changed, does not change the
effect or interpretation of that Rule; this information is included
solely for non-game-state purposes [specifically, revision tracking for
aiding thread-collapse, attribution, and titling for easy subject
classification].  Only the information described by Rule 303 "Proposal
and Rule Numbering" affects the interpretation of the Rule, and then
*only* in the case of a conflict between Rules where other methods of
determining Rule precedence fail.  This is not the case in this matter.

Rule 210 is not relevant as the Literature List is now a separately
maintained document and not included in the text of the Rule.  The Judge
is restricted to the state of the Rules at the time of the CFJ, and
cannot consider the original form, but only the form currently in play.

As a result this Judge finds that the guidelines contained in Rule 719
are inextricably part of Rule 719 [unless, of course, the Rule is
Ammended], and any modification of those guidelines comprises a
modification of the Rule, and these modifications have an effect on the
game state as any other change to the Rules would.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 16:46:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

> Vulcan's "final action" was completed before CFJ 458 was distributed by
> the CotC, in all threads in which Vulcan was capable of performing it
> at all.  It what is not clear to me, however, is whether the effective
> time of the CFJ is that at which it is submitted to the CotC, or that
> at which it is distributed by him.  If the former, then the CotC may
> be able to clear up the matter so that Vulcan's "final" actions do
> not affect the judgement.

I think game custom means things are effective when they are publically
knowable, therefore a delay between submission and distribution could
affect things, although I do not remember it happening.  If one is so
concerned about such a delay, then the statement of the CFJ can be 
worded to refer to a specific date and time in most cases.

As for the delays, I have been getting them out pretty quick, although
the last month is an exception.  I hope to get back on track soon.
There are 4 CFJs in the queue to be distributed, and they should come out
this evening.

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:00:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

Balsamic Dragon did not deliver a verdict in time (as far as
I can find).  It has been reassigned to /dev/joe

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 141
  Subject: Whatever that thing is 
Initiator: Rex Mundi
    Judge: Karma (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Balsamic Dragon (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:00h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai has committed a crime.

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

On the 16th of August, at about 22:25, Malenkai wrote "I think the Zilruhti
or whatever is a cool use of the CFCJ."
Now, we don't know much about Zuriti'ili, but it seems likely that
misspelling Zuriti'ili is itself Zuriti'ili.

Suggested penalty:

A deduction of 1 point, a fine of 1 A$, and a public apology of 1 or more
lines.

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

Date: 09 Sep 1997 16:01:37 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

Malenkai <[email-masked]> writes:

> I think game custom means things are effective when they are publically
> knowable, therefore a delay between submission and distribution could
> affect things, although I do not remember it happening.  If one is so
> concerned about such a delay, then the statement of the CFJ can be 
> worded to refer to a specific date and time in most cases.

	I followed the approvals of Vulcans in the public forum, but
neglected to save all but the first.  All I was looking for was
timestamps, so when I went into my archives they were gone... 

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:07:09 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

- ----------
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)
> Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 5:00 PM
> 
> Balsamic Dragon did not deliver a verdict in time (as far as
> I can find).  It has been reassigned to /dev/joe
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 141
>   Subject: Whatever that thing is 
> Initiator: Rex Mundi
>     Judge: Karma (deadbeat)
> 2nd Judge: Balsamic Dragon (deadbeat)
> 3rd Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:00h EDT)
> Judgement:
I don't think I ever accepted 141.  Still searching my archives tho,

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:06:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: off cfj inel

>   If I am on it, and I can do so, I am taking myself off the CFH
> Ineligibility List.

Here is the updated cil.  It will be updated on the web soon.

Ackers (368)
fnord (376)
Robert Sevin (voluntary)
Antimatter (voluntary)
CarsesraC (392)
CV1701 (411)
AZTEC G0D (428)
Niccolo Flychuck (C139)
Dread Pirate Roberts (446)
two-star (450)
Balsamic Dragon (452)

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:07:49 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> Alfvaen wrote:
> 
> > Basically, I am not convinced that interpretation 2), that Rule 1
> > empowered
> > both "Vulcan" and "The organization Vulcan", was adequately dealt with
> > by
> > the submitter of the CFJ or the Judge, who dismissed the possibility
> > summarily.  I don't really want to drag this out, as such, but I'd
> > like to
> > feel certain that the verdict takes everything into account, and I'm
> > willing
> > to take a 25-point penalty if this is ruled to be frivolous.
> > 
> *Grumble Grumble Gripe Grumble*
> 
> Of all the points in that CFJ to contest, Alfvaen chooses about the
> only one that Niccolo and I agree upon (if, perhaps, not for the same
> reasons).  Although I suppose it is possible that Malenkai's reasoning
> will sway Niccolo; his current support of interpretation (1) depends
> on him utterly rejecting the bulk of Malenkai's reasoning.

I disagree with the reasoning for Alfvaen's Appeal. I would like to point
out that Malenkai reasoning rests on the state as it had before Alfvaen
created  "the Organization Vulcan", and therefore does not conform, IMO,
to the guidelines set down by R215, and with a large body of Game Custom
that many a CFJ verdict depended on Game State, as the statement itself
questions the action in the context of the Game State ( and if someone
would point me to the current location of the CFJ archive, or just send a
really big attachment, I'd add some qoutations), and should consider the
Game State at the the judgement was invoked. Malenkai has used some very
good analysis, and based the bulk of his case on a Game State which no
longer existed at the time the CFJ was invoked.
It is on these grounds that I am appealing this CFJ.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Also, I wish to take this chance to commend Malenkai on what I think
> is a very well-researched and well-reasoned analysis of Malenkai's
> Loophole, as it applies to this situation.  (Indeed, who better to
> write such an analysis :-)  I agree fully with his evaluation of the
> effects of Malenkai's loophole, in this situation and in others, and
> would so agree even if I had no stake in the outcome of the CFJ.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:10:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

Balsamic Dragon Wrote:

> I don't think I ever accepted 141.  Still searching my archives tho,

I'll admit this is the only one I could not find, although I was sure
you accepted all CFJs except that whamiol one.  In any case, the assignment
to /dev/joe stands; all that matters is your score if you did not accept it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:12:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Bless this house of mine

Still hovering besides my dangling house, hopefully with /dev/joe besides
me, I am blessing my house, and awaiting a third winged player, or a
monopole, or something.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:15:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 460 (mr cwm)

mr cwm has been selected

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 460
  Subject: Witches are burning
Initiator: Rex Mundi
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:15h EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Rex Mundi was not burned as a witch.

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

>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."

That was before the Witchhunt on me was even called, let alone resolved,
and the rule does not say that it must be after the Witchhunt was called. I
am a member of the Church of Azpiazu, and am also a player. The rule does
not say any _other_ player, so I can give myself Sanctuary of Salvation.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:18:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has been selected

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 461
  Subject: Precedence of Precedence Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:18h EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement: 

The legality of a Vacationing Evil Overlord of Ackanomic 
(retired) entering Vulcan Headquarters (assuming they are not already in 
Vulcan Headquarters) appears equally legal and illegal.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning:

This is an example of what can happen when blanket precedence clauses are 
used without consideration of their ramifications, and one of the reasons 
I urged Vulcan not to attempt to make a "permanent Rule," since such a 
Rule almost certainly would involve blanket precedence.

The relevant portions of the Rules:

>From Rule 1:

>Members of Vulcan and Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired) are always 
>permitted to enter Vulcan Headquarters;

and also

>If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide 
>play. 

>From Rule 255:

>The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off 
>vacation and send public messages.

and also

>This rule has precedence over any rule which conflicts in whole or in 
>part, with any of its provisions. 

It is self-evident that Rules 1 and 255 set forth contradicting guidlines 
on the legality of an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired) entering 
Vulcan Headquarters while e is on Vacation.  Rule 1 says e may do it; 
Rule 255 say e may not.

It is also self-evident that each Rule says of itself that it takes 
precedence over all other Rules.

So, unless their exists some means of determining which Rule, of 1 or 
255, takes precedence over the other, the player action in question seems 
equally legal and illegal, and this CFJ should be ruled TRUE.

The relevant portion of Rule 102, which attempts but fails to resolve 
this conflict, is quoted here:

>Two or more rules may conflict with each other about a point of Ackanomic law. 
>In such a situation, if the rules other than this one specify a single, 
>coherent, unambiguous method for resolving the conflict then that method is
>applied to determine which rule or rules take precedence with regard to 
>that particular point of law. Otherwise, the rule with the lowest rule 
>number takes precedence. 

This means of determining precedence between Rules 1 and 255 fails 
because both Rules 1 and 255 contain the blanket precedence clause.  In 
short:

Rule 255 deals with, among other things, the legality of performing 
actions on Vacation, and a very specific part of precedence law.  The 
precedence law issued by Rule 255 (Rule 255 takes precedence, period.) 
conflicts with the precedence law of Rule 102.  However, Rule 102 says 
that if the conflicting Rules (other than 102) contain a means of 
determining precedence, then that means applies.  In a conflict between 
Rules 102 and 255, then, Rule 102 is removed from the equation, and Rule 
255's precedence guideline takes precedence over the precedence law of 
Rule 102 -- in precedence cases involving Rule 255, Rule 255's precedence 
guideline guides play.

The same argument shows in precedence cases involving Rule 1, Rule 1's 
precedence guideline guides play.

Rules 1 and 255 conflict with regard to whether it is legal for a Vacations 
EOA(r) to enter Vulcan Headquarters.  They also conflict with regard to 
which precedence guideline guides play.  They are in unanimous agreement, 
however, that the precedence law of Rule 102 cannot take precedence over 
the precedence laws expressed in Rules 1 and 255.

We are left then, with conflicting location law, and a conflicting 
precedence law, and the one precedence Rule capable of resolving the 
conflict failing to have enough precedence to do so.  Paradox.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:24:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 462 (Red Barn)

Red Barn has been selected

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 462
  Subject: Priests
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Red Barn (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:24h EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Guy Fawkes is no longer a Priest.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

A Priest is ordained as a member of a Church.  While the Rules are silent
on the matter, it seems to me logical that when a Church ceases to exist,
that any players who were ordained Priests in that Church would not remain
Priests.  The same case would also occur if a Priest left a Church, IMHO; 
it would seem silly for a player to remain a Priest in that case, and the
situations seem analogous.  Also, a Priest who left one Church, retained
eir status, and was admitted to another Church, would still be a Priest,
despite not having been ordained by the founder of eir Church.  All this
seems counterintuitive to me, which may or may not mean anything, but since
the Rules don't say anything on this matter...  There is also an analogous
situation in the loss of the position of Swinger when a player leaves a
Party.

At the very least, if a person may still call emself a Priest while only a
member of a Cult, then e should not have the abilities that the Priest of a
Church has.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:26:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 463 (mr cwm)

mr cwm has been selected

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 463
  Subject: Changing the rules
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:26h EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Changing the rules is impossible for Vulcan.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Look at CFJ 452...

>Judgement: TRUE
>
>Statement:
>
>The organization named "The organization Vulcan" was at no time
>empowered by the rules to change the rules.

  One could argue that this is no longer the case, but that argument is
trivially disposed of, so I won't.

  This is a Paradox Win CFJ.  I quote rule 601/6:
>>>>>
A call for judgement whose statement alleges that further play is
impossible, that changing the rules is impossible, or that a player action
which would affect the game state appears equally legal and illegal is a
"Paradox Win CFJ." Only those CFJs so specified by the rules are Paradox
Win CFJs. When it ceases to be legal to appeal a particular Paradox Win
CFJ, if the final verdict is true, and the player who submitted the CFJ is
a voting player at that time, then that player wins the cycle.
<<<<<

  It says nothing about changing the rules being UNIVERSALLY impossible.
Tsk, tsk.
- --- end CFJ. ---

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:32:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Bless this house of mine

This is not a proper blessing, as defined by the Rules, nor was it said 
at such a time to guard against the Equinodal Tornado.

Doesn't Odo teach its priests to pray?  :)

GF

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> Still hovering besides my dangling house, hopefully with /dev/joe besides
> me, I am blessing my house, and awaiting a third winged player, or a
> monopole, or something.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:37:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 462 (Red Barn)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Red Barn has been selected
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 462
>   Subject: Priests
> Initiator: Alfvaen
>     Judge: Red Barn (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:24h EDT)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Guy Fawkes is no longer a Priest.
> 
> Alfvaen's Reasoning:
> 
> A Priest is ordained as a member of a Church.  While the Rules are silent
> on the matter, it seems to me logical that when a Church ceases to exist,
> that any players who were ordained Priests in that Church would not remain
> Priests.  The same case would also occur if a Priest left a Church, IMHO; 
> it would seem silly for a player to remain a Priest in that case, and the
> situations seem analogous.  Also, a Priest who left one Church, retained
> eir status, and was admitted to another Church, would still be a Priest,
> despite not having been ordained by the founder of eir Church.  All this
> seems counterintuitive to me, which may or may not mean anything, but since
> the Rules don't say anything on this matter...  There is also an analogous
> situation in the loss of the position of Swinger when a player leaves a
> Party.
> 
> At the very least, if a person may still call emself a Priest while only a
> member of a Cult, then e should not have the abilities that the Priest of a
> Church has.

The only connection that Priests and Churches have in the Ruleset is that 
to obtain Priesthood, one must be ordained by the Church founder; pending 
legislation may also give the Church founder the power to remove 
Priesthood from any member of his church who has it.

In the absence of such mechanisms to deprive a player of Priesthood, I 
remain a Priest.  "The game state may only be changed as described by the 
Rules."  The rules provided a means for me to obtain this status, which 
was to be ordained by a Church founder.  They contain no means to lose 
this status which apply to me.

GF

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:37:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

> as the statement itself
> questions the action in the context of the Game State ( and if someone
> would point me to the current location of the CFJ archive, or just send a
> really big attachment, I'd add some qoutations), and should consider the
> Game State at the the judgement was invoked. Malenkai has used some very
> good analysis, and based the bulk of his case on a Game State which no
> longer existed at the time the CFJ was invoked.

I point out that it is game custom that attempting an action does automatically
create game custom that the action was successful (or create the premises of
law assumed to indicate the action would be successful).  This only occurs
if there is implicit or explicit acceptance by the game at large after some
sort of unwritten grace period.  Otherwise, I claim the wording of rule 101
is so vague that it really says "Malenkai may change his score as a public
action".  Hence I change my score to the magic number, it is so, it is a
customary interpretation of rule 101, let it be done; would the harfers please
take care of the game state.

If that is not what you were driving at, please indicate to me, and the 
Court, the *specific* body of game custom that I ignored in this case; it
will allow us all to get to a verdict quicker.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:39:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

On 9 Sep 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey) writes:
> 
> > Well, since the actual graphical Map tends to get updated so infrequently,
> > you gotta pay attention to the text listing underneath the Map.  We don't
> > have a little "dangling" graphic that goes on the Map image; trying to fit
> > that on "correspond to a text string consisting of an infinite number of
> > q's" would probably be difficult.
> 
> 	q* 
> 
> 	8)
> 
> 	Regular expressions are nice.  For those who don't know what I'm
> talking about, regexps are used to match text strings.  The character '*'
> means "match 0 or more occurances of the preceding expression", so "q*"
> would match any string of 'q's of any length.  

How I wish aleph was an ASCII character...

GF

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:45:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> I point out that it is game custom that attempting an action does automatically
> create game custom that the action was successful (or create the premises of
> law assumed to indicate the action would be successful).  This only occurs
> if there is implicit or explicit acceptance by the game at large after some
> sort of unwritten grace period.  Otherwise, I claim the wording of rule 101
> is so vague that it really says "Malenkai may change his score as a public
> action".  Hence I change my score to the magic number, it is so, it is a
> customary interpretation of rule 101, let it be done; would the harfers please
> take care of the game state.

This does, of course, fail, being patently illegal.

GF
guarding against retroactivity

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:51:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CotC page and Resignation

The CotC page is finally up to date.  Note that the links still
point to non-existant CFJs on wilma.  At some point, I still
hope to work to get archives of CFJs over to breadbox, but it
might be today, tomorrow, or next week, sorry.

Also, I am resigning as trinket harfer, effective now.  Others
have indicated time and capacity, perhaps someone else can do it.
IAC, sorry Alfvaen :)  The page is up to date except for Karma's
trinkets, and the "rules of Ackanomic", which I claim crashed the
game in the CFJ 452 false thread, so it really doesn't matter...

Malenkai
Acka's only ex-Trinket Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 17:53:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

[about the new customary interpretation of rule 101]

> This does, of course, fail, being patently illegal.

Are you sure?  I thought it was game custom that rule 101 be
interpreted that way.  I actually don't think an objection is
necessary on all of these; failure of the officers to harf
it is implicit rejection, IMO, but I have been wrong before :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:02:55 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> I disagree with the reasoning for Alfvaen's Appeal. I would like to
> point
> out that Malenkai reasoning rests on the state as it had before
> Alfvaen
> created  "the Organization Vulcan", and therefore does not conform,
> IMO,
> to the guidelines set down by R215, and with a large body of Game
> Custom
> that many a CFJ verdict depended on Game State, as the statement
> itself
> questions the action in the context of the Game State ( and if someone
> would point me to the current location of the CFJ archive, or just
> send a
> really big attachment, I'd add some qoutations), and should consider
> the
> Game State at the the judgement was invoked. Malenkai has used some
> very
> good analysis, and based the bulk of his case on a Game State which no
> longer existed at the time the CFJ was invoked.
> It is on these grounds that I am appealing this CFJ.
> 
Is it really necessary to re-appeal it just because you don't like the
appeal reasoning?

In any case, (surprise, surprise) I heartilly disagree with Niccolo's
assessment of Malenkai's argument.  The rules require that the verdict
be in accord with the game state at the time that the CFJ was issued,
but that in no way means that the game state at earlier times cannot
be considered!  Indeed, I claim that the only way to know the game
state at the time the CFJ was issued is to consider the game state
at an earlier time and the collective actions between that time and
the CFJ time.  Thus, conforming to the rules' requirements _requires_
that the game state at times before the issuance of a CFJ be evaluated
and considered by the Judge.

More importantly, however, neither Niccolo nor Alfvaen has offered any
new arguments for Malenkai's verdict not being in accord with the
rules or game state (of the appropriate time).  Alfvaen claimed
dissatisfaction with Malenkai's quick dismissal of one possibility,
thus I presume that Alfvaen's favored interpretation is that particular
possibility.  He has made no argument for it, however.  Niccolo, on
the other hand, praises Malenkai's analysis.  He does not seem to
deny its correctness, arguing instead (I think) that Malenkai did not
reach his decision in accord with the rules.  I remind him, and
everyone, that it is only the verdict which must be in accord with the
rules, game state, etc..  The rules place little restriction on _how_
the Judge comes to that verdict, requiring only that game custom and
the spirit of the game be considered in some cases.  Malenkai appears
to have done exactly that.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 18:51:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name Space Reservation

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Randy Hall wrote:

> I am creating a Trinket called "rules of Ackanomic", valued at
> A$ 45.  It description is: "it is green".
> 
> Malenkai
> 

Heh, while I admire your forethough in preparing for an overturning of
your verdict, I think the game could reasonably be said to have crashed if
that were to happen.  As I said in my judgement of, was it 453?  There's
been so damn many...  Anyway, as I said in my reasoning to the CFJ, if a
phrase which was so clearly understood as "The organization Vulcan" is in
actuality ambiguous enough to have such completely different meanings,
then the Rules are no longer coherent.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

>> Well, since the actual graphical Map tends to get updated so infrequently,
>> you gotta pay attention to the text listing underneath the Map.  We don't
>> have a little "dangling" graphic that goes on the Map image; trying to fit
>> that on "correspond to a text string consisting of an infinite number of
>> q's" would probably be difficult.
> 
> 	q* 
> 
> 	8)
> 
> 	Regular expressions are nice.  For those who don't know what I'm
> talking about, regexps are used to match text strings.  The character '*'
> means "match 0 or more occurances of the preceding expression", so "q*"
> would match any string of 'q's of any length.  

But of course, the name isn't any string of 'q's; it is specifically
the infinite string of 'q's. Perhaps we need to use "q{oo}".

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 458 (Archie Leach)

>> I think game custom means things are effective when they are publically
>> knowable, therefore a delay between submission and distribution could
>> affect things, although I do not remember it happening.  If one is so
>> concerned about such a delay, then the statement of the CFJ can be 
>> worded to refer to a specific date and time in most cases.
> 
> 	I followed the approvals of Vulcans in the public forum, but
> neglected to save all but the first.  All I was looking for was
> timestamps, so when I went into my archives they were gone... 

FWIW, Vulcan's rule-changing actions have all been archived. Look
under Senate Resolutions on the main page. I've been very careful to
note the times that everything occurred.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Reattachment squad

Myself, two-star, and Karma will have finished recovering from the
Supreme Court at 11:54 ACKA today.

Alfvaen - any public buildings that haven't been reattached?

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:59:29 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: CFJ 462 (Red Barn)

> Red Barn has been selected
>
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 462
>   Subject: Priests
> Initiator: Alfvaen
>     Judge: Red Barn (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:24h EDT)
> Judgement:

  I accept.

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:22:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> It occurs to me that I have not yet described my house, but that it my well
> be hanging despite my never having used it.  How can I find out what its
> status is?
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 

As the assorted priests failed to all say their official prayers this
month *sniff*, all buildings that were in existance at the time of the
floods were swept off.  This means you. :)

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #296
*******************************