Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #298
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, September 10 1997     Volume 02 : Number 298

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The HTML Standard: Volume 1 number 6

This is a common oversight with newspapers, it seems....

> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:14:57 -0700
> From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
> Subject: The HTML Standard: Volume 1 number 6

"Acka" is missing from the subject line.

I think that this means that The HTML Standard has yet to publish a
Volume 1 number 6 issue.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:14:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Well, I apologize GF.  heck, I apoloize to everybody for wasting
> their time.  Frankly, I just couldn't stand the fact that I actually
> figured out where a paradox was but didn't take the time to find
> it until after it was too late.  I was too damn lazy as usual, and now
> I've pretty much embarassed myself over it. :)  Ah well.  I retract this
> CFJ, if only in spirit.

No need for apology.  I know with some of the best p-wins of the past 
(Mohammed's Copycat Paradox, for example) everyone was kicking themselves 
for a week -- in that case, there was nary a player who hadn't read over 
that line a time or two, wondered, and then moved on with only a vague 
remembrance and a mild headache.  There's still no guarantee that it 
will be judged TRUE though.

GF 

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:17:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> It was clear enough to me...  I figured you were just saying that you retracted
> it if it wasn't already invalid.  (Which, as Scorekeeper, I'll need to make
> some kind of call on...)

It would only have been invalid if the Judg had returned an INVALID 
verdict before its retraction.

GF

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:20:29 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

> > 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.
> 
Yeah, I searched all my sent items and I never accepted 141.  In the letter
in which I accepted several judgeships and declined the Whamiol case, I did
not accept 141, though I forgot to decline it.

Please change my score accordingly.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:33:22 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: off cfj inel

> > 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)
> > 

How does one take oneself off this list?  If it merely requires a request,
then I hereby request to be taken off.  

(So I missed one, I got the others didn't I?)
Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:37:53 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Dragon lady

> Balsamic dragon in addition your house description you have also left a
> blank space among the acka gallery.
> 

Yeah, I know.  I promise I'll get to those soon.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:32:16 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: off cfj inel

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> How does one take oneself off this list?  If it merely requires a
> request,
> then I hereby request to be taken off.
> 
It merely requires a request.  The purpose of the list is to speed up
judicial proceedings by (1) allowing players to exempt themselves from
selection and (2) making deadbeat Judges become ineligible (in case,
for instance, they have gone away without putting themselves on
vacation).  The list is not intended as punishment of any kind.
>   
> (So I missed one, I got the others didn't I?)
> 
I believe so, and I commend you for it.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:33:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

The Clerk of the Court wrote:

> ThinMan has been selected.
> 
I realize that CFJ 464 has already been retracted.  I am too lazy to
check the rules on this right now, so I decline judgement, just to
be sure.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:43:39 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

It seems a little unsportsmanlike to argue with someone who has gone
on vacation.  I am not letting that stop me, however.

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> Malenkai uses the reasoning to demonstrate the processs by which he
> arrived at the verdict. I did not argue against considerin a past Game
> State, Iargued that he considered _solely_ a past Game STate, and not
> the
> one which existed at the time the CFJ was invoked.
> 
The main reason I am not hesitating to argue with this, is that my
earlier comments already addressed the question.  Niccolo even quoted
that part of my message, although he placed it below his signature
and declined to comment on it.  The only extent to which the Judge
is required to consider any current, past, or even future game state
is so that the verdict is consistent with the game state as of the
time judgement was invoked.  Niccolo has not even hinted at any reason
why the game state at the CFJ's invokation might contradict Malenkai's
verdict, or even his reasoning.  As I am certain that Niccolo knows
the difference between the verdict and the reasoning, I do not
understand why he provided any of the appeal reasoning that he did.

> I offered no new arguments, because in the past few days I offered an
> abundance of arguments about both relevant CFJs.
> 
The judge was aware of these arguments, and apparently rejected them.
If it is on the basis of these arguments that you want the SC to
consider the case, then why didn't you say so?

> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
>  > 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 somecases.  Malenkai appears
> > to have done exactly that.
> 
ThinMan

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

Date: 10 Sep 1997 08:54:04 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]> writes:

>				Is the judgement on a CFJ supposed to
> look at the Rules as they stand when the judgement is returned, or the
> Rules as they stood when the CFJ was released?  And why does this issue
> not seem to bother anyone else, is there some obvious custom or Rule
> that I keep missing when I look for something on this?  

	Rule 215 "Judgements Must Accord with the Rules":

"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."

	Which means, I suppose, that the CotC should probably be noting
the time the CFJ was *sent* to him in the CFJ as distributed.  [For my
CFJ, the times were essentially identical as the CotC submitted the CFJ.]

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:51:27 -0500
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka tattoo

Thank you very much.  I didn't feel a thing.

Crackfoo

- ----------
> From: Michael James <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: acka tattoo
> Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 11:03 PM
> 
> Tecnho's "mother Techno" tattoo magically changes to "Mother Crackfoo" in
> tandem with 'is name change
> - karma

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:40:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

>         Which means, I suppose, that the CotC should probably be noting
> the time the CFJ was *sent* to him in the CFJ as distributed.  [For my
> CFJ, the times were essentially identical as the CotC submitted the CFJ.]

Perhaps I should.  How does the CFJ archive harfer and others feel about
this?

Malenkai
CotC

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:25:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Thread

So am I correct in thinking that we have now collapsed into a thread where
the (real) Supreme Court's attempts to modify Rule 719 by Zuriti'ili
guideline actually worked, and breadbox's "Rule-Harfing" post succeeded in
defanging the Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite?  (If, of course, "The
organization Vulcan" didn't do so earlier...yes, I know everyone but me
considers that unlikely...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Brian Eno:The True Wheel
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
The housemate prefers ironing to washing up.  They have many flat forks.  -jsam

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:08:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

> > Okay.  Then it wasn't considered sufficiently close to GF's CFJ for it to have
> > become invalid.  That was what I wanted to know...

> That is not my decision.  It wasn't *judged* invalid before it was retracted,
> though.

Okay...I went and reread the Rules, and you're right, it has to be _judged_
INVALID.  I guess I was thinking the procedure would be analogous to
Proposals...which is technically the purview of a Judge as well, but
somehow we all seem to be able to agree on which Proposals are invalid (at
least, if something gets accidentally duped, like mine in P2258-2275
there...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Cranberries:Linger
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
People who live in glass houses shouldn't.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:51:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CotC page and Resignation

> 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...

A Nomination for Trinket-Harfer starts now.  Reply to this message to
volunteer.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Cranberries:Linger
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
The road to hell has a silver lining.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:05:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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.

Questions: if Balsamic Dragon either failed to actively decline, or
accepted and failed to return judgement, doesn't that mean that it goes to
the Praetor?  For that matter, shouldn't it have happened when Karma failed
to judge it?  I'm a bit fuzzy on those Rules, but that's how I read R212 and
R213 myself...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Cranberries:Linger
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
This sentence contains only one nonstandard English flutzpah.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:37:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

> Questions: if Balsamic Dragon either failed to actively decline, or
> accepted and failed to return judgement, doesn't that mean that it goes to
> the Praetor?  For that matter, shouldn't it have happened when Karma failed
> to judge it?  I'm a bit fuzzy on those Rules, but that's how I read R212 and
> R213 myself...

Whether she failed to decline or failed to deliver a verdict has the 
same scoring and other effects, -10 points and redistribution.  The
reason it doesn't go to the Preator is that the Preator is ineligible
to be selected as a judge for it.  I believe that is in the Preator
rule.

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:45:36 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

> Whether she failed to decline or failed to deliver a verdict has the 
> same scoring and other effects, -10 points and redistribution.  The
> reason it doesn't go to the Preator is that the Preator is ineligible
> to be selected as a judge for it.  I believe that is in the Preator
> rule.
> 

Is it too late to whine about losing points?  I seem to remember something
about that in the rules for new players...

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:44:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato + Aliens

Onieros has found the magic potato.

Aliens:

1667
1718
2254

none are rules; no rule-numbered majiks exist.

Malenkai
better late than never

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:00:38 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Thread

Alfvaen wrote:

> So am I correct in thinking that we have now collapsed into a thread
> where
> the (real) Supreme Court's attempts to modify Rule 719 by Zuriti'ili
> guideline actually worked, and breadbox's "Rule-Harfing" post
> succeeded in
> defanging the Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite?  (If, of course, "The
> organization Vulcan" didn't do so earlier...yes, I know everyone but
> me
> considers that unlikely...:-)
> 
I believe so.  We have not yet, however, determined which alternative
text of rule 719 is the correct (current) one.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 460 (mr cwm)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

>mr cwm has been selected

That was quick.  I accept.  In case I need it, does the message archive
still exist?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 463 (mr cwm)

I accept appointment to CFj 463.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:29:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thread

Alfvaen wrote:
> So am I correct in thinking that we have now collapsed into a thread where
> the (real) Supreme Court's attempts to modify Rule 719 by Zuriti'ili
> guideline actually worked, and breadbox's "Rule-Harfing" post succeeded in
> defanging the Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite?  (If, of course, "The
> organization Vulcan" didn't do so earlier...yes, I know everyone but me
> considers that unlikely...:-)

Actually, we are collapsed to a state where the Supreme Court's
attempts to modify rule 719 failed, because the zuriti'ili rule added
the current guideline back when Red Barn's 3rd appeal was made, not
waiting for the Supreme Court to get through with their thing, so it
took the one from the original judgement.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:24:32 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The HTML Standard Volume 1, Number 5

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, **Alexandre Muniz wrote:
> 
> > Correction:
> > Previously, we at the HTML Standard announced that we would be holding
> > a playtest Agenda Condition auction using Rule 2283's hidden agenda RFC.
> > We regret that this will not occur, due to insufficient interest.

> Grr.  I for one hope that the other members of Acka, many of whom have at
> one point or another encouraged two-star in this endevour, get off the
> couch and pitch in.  I am pretty sure that if this had been real, and not
> a "play-test" that there would have been more interest.

Well, I was in a bit of a sour mood when I put out that issue. If anyone 
else wants to see me propose this, send 3 agenda conditions either to me 
or to the public forum. The latter would have the advantage of reminding 
anyone else who wants to get involved. If you have lost the initial RFC, 
or if you have any questions email me. One clarification I should give 
is that "this hat" should be an acceptable substitute for "the agenda 
hat associated with this condition" when and if I submit this. Once 
there are four participants, I will have you send bids on them according 
to the procedure in the RFC.I would like this to be at least slightly 
tested before I propose it. I'm afraid I won't be giving away prizes to 
anyone who sends conditions after the original deadline. Which reminds 
me...

I am creating two trinkets, each worth 12 A$, called "HTML Standard 
Playtest Edition Eggplant and Hat Set 1" and "HTML Standard Playtest 
Edition Eggplant and Hat Set I" both with the description delimited by 
PALMARES:

PALMARES
A cardboard box filled with styrobeetle corpses and the following, each 
in clear plastic wrapping:
Three darkly stained teak eggplants with the words "The HTML Standard" 
enameled in gold. There is a brass plate on each where an agenda 
condition was to be engraved, but these are all blank. Also, three 
violet felt fezes with the words "the HTML Standard" embroidered in 
white in a flowing script with a small tag inside that says "Warning: 
this is not a real hat. Do not wear or machine wash."
PALMARES

I am giving the HTML Standard Playtest Edition Eggplant and Hat Set I to 
Vynd, and the HTML Standard Playtest Edition Eggplant and Hat Set 1 to 
Alfvaen. Sorry I didnt bother to unpack them; there didn't seem to be 
much point.

It is interesting to note that these trinkets have everything one would 
need StEo find the curious clock...

**two-star

...but I have given away enough.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:55:26 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: entity names

I think that the events of the past weeks have sufficiently demonstrated
that the naming of entity rules need to be severly reworked.  I am thinking
of putting together a proposal that will modify the uniqueness, entity, and
naming rules to clear up some of the nastier bugs.  To that end, I am
posting a list of statements which may or may not be true in the current
game state, but which seem to me should be true.  Please let me know which
ones you think the rules should reflect clearly.

1.	Some entities are unique and some are not.  
2.	Entities which are unique should have a unique name.
3.	Entities which are not unique should have a general designation.
4.	Entities should be divided into several categories, ie. organizations, 
trinkets...
5.	Within most of these categories should be subclasses known as types.
6.	If there exists an entity of a particular type which is unique, then
that entity 	should be the only entity of that type.
7.	Otherwise, a type consists of some number of non-unique entities.
8.	All specifically rule made entities should be unique unless the rules
say 	specifically that they are not unique.
9.	All unique entity's names should begin with a capital, alphabetic
character.
10.	All non-unique entities designations should begin with a non-capital, 
alphabetic character or a non alphabetic character, ie. $A or ackadollars.

Humbly presented for your review,

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

>1.	Some entities are unique and some are not.  
>2.	Entities which are unique should have a unique name.
>3.	Entities which are not unique should have a general designation.
>4.	Entities should be divided into several categories, ie. organizations, 
>trinkets...

  I'd say all of these should be put in the rules if they're not already.

>5.	Within most of these categories should be subclasses known as types.

  Yes, but I'd rather have a more general nested-type system: ie,
political parties being a type of organization, and (well, this is a bad,
made-up example) political parties containing the term "Bob" being a type
of political party as well as a type of organization.

>6.	If there exists an entity of a particular type which is unique, then
>that entity 	should be the only entity of that type.

  The type being the unique thing?  Yes.

>7.	Otherwise, a type consists of some number of non-unique entities.
>8.	All specifically rule made entities should be unique unless the rules
>say 	specifically that they are not unique.

  I agree with all of these.

>9.	All unique entity's names should begin with a capital, alphabetic
>character.
>10.	All non-unique entities designations should begin with a non-capital, 
>alphabetic character or a non alphabetic character, ie. $A or ackadollars.

  I do not agree with these.  It is true that in English all proper nouns
begin with capital letters, but what about 'main' from C, or 'i', or
mathmatical constants or other such things?
  Similarly I don't like the second: "Jukkasjarvi-eating thingie", for
example.

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Vynd wrote:

>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. :)

Didn't this happen last month, too?  Hmmm ...

Anyway, I climb to the ground.  If anyone would like to re-attach The
Revolving Shed, I'd appreciate it.  If not ... well, it might be vaguely
amusing to live on an empty kaa of land.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:14:00 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

>   I do not agree with these.  It is true that in English all proper nouns
> begin with capital letters, but what about 'main' from C, or 'i', or
> mathmatical constants or other such things?

"i" is a number not an entity, but what on earth is "main" from C?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:11:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

>>   I do not agree with these.  It is true that in English all proper nouns
>> begin with capital letters, but what about 'main' from C, or 'i', or
>> mathmatical constants or other such things?
>
>"i" is a number not an entity, but what on earth is "main" from C?

  The name of the first function called on running a C program.

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:39:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Vynd wrote, concerning

>> Call For Judgment 461
>>   Subject: Precedence of Precedence Paradox
>> Initiator: Guy Fawkes

>I congratulate you, Guy Fawkes, for I think this is a true Paradox.

Maybe, although I'm not entirely convinced.  I'm a bit concerned about
looking at precedence by pairs of rules in this argument.  R102 says that
two *or more* rules may conflict, so I think that all three rules (R1,
R102, and R255) should be considered together.  The "other" rules (R1 and
R255) do not state a coherent method for determining precedence, so R102
may kick in to resolve it (giving precedence to R1), even though by doing
so it invalidates it's own power to do so ... um ... maybe not, but it's a
thought.

Here's another thought.  R102 says that two or more rules may confilct on
some point.  The only point under consideration here is the ability of a
vacationing Vulcan etc. to perform a certain act.  That is, the point in
question doesn't involve R102 at all.  Since R1 and R255 do not provide a
coherent way to resolve this conflict, R102 can come in and give
precedence to R1 on this point.  

Or maybe some combination of the two.  (I wish I could just slip this
under someone's door, and run.)

Anyway, maybe this CFJ is true, but I don't think it's as obvious as it
might look.

- -mr cwm
 can Bronze Torches be extinguished?

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:13:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Vynd wrote, concerning
> 
> >> Call For Judgment 461
> >>   Subject: Precedence of Precedence Paradox
> >> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
> 
> >I congratulate you, Guy Fawkes, for I think this is a true Paradox.
> 
> Maybe, although I'm not entirely convinced.  I'm a bit concerned about
> looking at precedence by pairs of rules in this argument.  R102 says that
> two *or more* rules may conflict, so I think that all three rules (R1,
> R102, and R255) should be considered together.  The "other" rules (R1 and
> R255) do not state a coherent method for determining precedence, so R102
> may kick in to resolve it (giving precedence to R1), even though by doing
> so it invalidates it's own power to do so ... um ... maybe not, but it's a
> thought.
> 
> Here's another thought.  R102 says that two or more rules may confilct on
> some point.  The only point under consideration here is the ability of a
> vacationing Vulcan etc. to perform a certain act.  That is, the point in
> question doesn't involve R102 at all.  Since R1 and R255 do not provide a
> coherent way to resolve this conflict, R102 can come in and give
> precedence to R1 on this point.  

Invoking Rule 102 to cause Rule 1 to take precedence over Rule 255 causes 
Rule 102 to conflict with Rule 255, a precedence dispute which Rule 255 
wins.  Rule 102 only remains outside the point in question if it is never 
invoked.  We need Rule 102 to solve the first conflict; invoking it 
causes another.

We have rules.  Because the possibility exists that these rules can 
conflict with each other, we need metarules to resolve such conflicts.  
So long as the metarules remain that -- beyond the rules, there is no 
problem.  However, our ruleset makes no distinction between the rules and 
metarules -- destroying the immutables deprived the game of any pretense 
of such, and thus, we run into problems where the rules conflict with the 
metarules, and there are no rules to resolve the conflict.

An anology exists in linguistic paradoxes, such as the heterological 
paradox, or the set of all sets which do not contain themselves paradox.  
They result from confusing statements expressed by the language with 
statements about the language.  Our ruleset makes just the same error by 
including rules about the rules within the set of rules.  Rule 102 is 
unfortunately bound by the same precedence laws that it sets forth, its 
invokation is its undoing.

Of course, if the metarules were raised beyond the Rules, there of course 
must exist metametarules to govern the metarules and possible conflicts 
therein, and so forth either ad infinitum or until the meta-n-rules are 
in fact the Rules, which leads us to the circular problem that this CFJ 
addresses.

GF

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

>We have rules.  Because the possibility exists that these rules can 
>conflict with each other, we need metarules to resolve such conflicts.  
>So long as the metarules remain that -- beyond the rules, there is no 
>problem.  However, our ruleset makes no distinction between the rules and 
>metarules -- destroying the immutables deprived the game of any pretense 
>of such, and thus, we run into problems where the rules conflict with the 
>metarules, and there are no rules to resolve the conflict.
>
>Of course, if the metarules were raised beyond the Rules, there of course 
>must exist metametarules to govern the metarules and possible conflicts 
>therein, and so forth either ad infinitum or until the meta-n-rules are 
>in fact the Rules, which leads us to the circular problem that this CFJ 
>addresses.

  Unless there was a mere single metarule.

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:44:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 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.
> 
As Vynd has so aptly demonstrated, the rules have multiple instances
of this sort of conflict without consideration of Rule 1.  Calling
this a reason to object to the establishment of a "permanent Rule"
therefore seems rather disingenuous to me.  General objection to
blanket precedence is a seperate issue, but I don't see anyone rushing
to eliminate blanket precedence from other rules.  This particular
conflict can be eliminated be changing rules other than rule 1.  In
fact, it can be changed by modifying rule 102 and not disturbing
the blanket-precedence-claiming rule 255 either.  In fact, among the
language discarded during the recent R102 rewrite was, I believe,
the language that would have avoided this problem.  I think I'll
propose an amendment now.

As for whether this is, indeed, a paradox now -- Guy Fawkes appears
to have a fairly sound case.  I was preparing an argument along the
lines that mr cwm described when I realized that it is really a
pretty sticky question.  In particular, although it appears that the
rules specify that R102 does not have precedence over either R1 or
R255, does that mean that it cannot direct how to settle a precedence
conflict between them?  Does game custom enter into it at this point?
I am not convinced either way at this point.

ThinMan
For once, happy to _not_ have been selected

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:51:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

> > Whether she failed to decline or failed to deliver a verdict has the 
> > same scoring and other effects, -10 points and redistribution.  The
> > reason it doesn't go to the Preator is that the Preator is ineligible
> > to be selected as a judge for it.  I believe that is in the Preator
> > rule.

> Is it too late to whine about losing points?  I seem to remember something
> about that in the rules for new players...

Why, yes.  Look at Rule 1129, "Crazy French-Scotsman".  Until...the 16th, I
guess, 31 days after you joined...you can exercise your new-player
privileges to offset any point losses.  (And if you can do it enough times
in a short space, you can get the coveted title of "Crazy Scotsman" or
"Crazy French-Scotsman".  Vynd's own accomplishments that earned him the
title are on the web pages, I believe...)

So, whine away!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Spike Jones:Cocktails For Two
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Exit 'Loons On The Tree'.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:00:50 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 141 (/dev/joe)

> > Is it too late to whine about losing points?  I seem to remember
something
> > about that in the rules for new players...
> 
> Why, yes.  Look at Rule 1129, "Crazy French-Scotsman".  Until...the 16th,
I
> guess, 31 days after you joined...you can exercise your new-player
> privileges to offset any point losses.  (And if you can do it enough
times
> in a short space, you can get the coveted title of "Crazy Scotsman" or
> "Crazy French-Scotsman".  Vynd's own accomplishments that earned him the
> title are on the web pages, I believe...)
> 
I read the scotsman rule and it stinks!  Even if I did whine, I would only
get, like four points when I lost ten! Humph, just see if I give you the
satisfaction!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:01:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

> >1.	Some entities are unique and some are not.  
> >2.	Entities which are unique should have a unique name.
> >3.	Entities which are not unique should have a general designation.
> >4.	Entities should be divided into several categories, ie. organizations, 
> >trinkets...

>   I'd say all of these should be put in the rules if they're not already.

I think most of them are, but perhaps not as flat-out statements.

> >5.	Within most of these categories should be subclasses known as types.

>   Yes, but I'd rather have a more general nested-type system: ie,
> political parties being a type of organization, and (well, this is a bad,
> made-up example) political parties containing the term "Bob" being a type
> of political party as well as a type of organization.

How about the one with "organizations" being a class of entities, and
"player-formed organizations" being a subclass of those, and "political
parties" a type of those.  And maybe "political parties with trade
licenses...:-)"  Some kind of cladistic categorization could work.  (That
way, if something affects a given "type", it will affect the smallest set
of entities that includes that type...so 'the Revolution', as a generic
rule-sanctioned org, would have affected Churches as well, a subtype of
rule-sanctioned orgs.)

> >6.	If there exists an entity of a particular type which is unique, then
> >that entity 	should be the only entity of that type.

>   The type being the unique thing?  Yes.

> >7.	Otherwise, a type consists of some number of non-unique entities.

I'm not sure whether with this one and 3. you're allowing for non-unique
entities of a given type with different designations...like Trinkets, all
of which have unique names.  Hopefully you are, otherwise this is a really
bad idea.  :-)

> >8.	All specifically rule made entities should be unique unless the rules
> >say 	specifically that they are not unique.

>   I agree with all of these.

This would be the reverse of what we have now, so it would require a fair
bit of changeover.  What would work would be something like: if it is
possible to create an instance of a type of entity with a public action,
then it's obviously not unique; if it's defined in the Rules as a class of
nonunique entities, it's not unique; otherwise it's unique.  I'm not sure
what would be gained by making unique as the default instead of non-unique.

> >9.	All unique entity's names should begin with a capital, alphabetic
> >character.
> >10.	All non-unique entities designations should begin with a non-capital, 
> >alphabetic character or a non alphabetic character, ie. $A or ackadollars.

>   I do not agree with these.  It is true that in English all proper nouns
> begin with capital letters, but what about 'main' from C, or 'i', or
> mathmatical constants or other such things?
>   Similarly I don't like the second: "Jukkasjarvi-eating thingie", for
> example.

In general, I think that case is not significant in Acka.  The " " Rule
ignores it when generating canonical forms, for instance.  Also, this would
prohibit player names from being capitalized, since players are non-unique
entities.

If you want a uniqueness designator, then maybe use "The".  In the
entitylog I use to generate the PE page(whose format I inherited from
/dev/joe), all unique entities have names prefixed with "the".  (So
"thegtuba", as opposed to "pfmalenkai".)  Of course, both of these run into
problems with trinket names, which often start with "The", and which the PE
program considers unique(in that it says "Has the" as opposed to "Has a").

Also, while this may make it entirely clear what happened with The
Revolution, it would be nice if it could also be made clear what happened
with The Supreme Court and The organization Vulcan as well.  If there is a
way of codifying that into the Rules, that is...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Spike Jones:Cocktails For Two
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
"You want the police here--in my underwear?"

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:02:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: house

> >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. :)

> Didn't this happen last month, too?  Hmmm ...

I know.  I've penalized Rex Mundi for his incompetent prayers.  (Or if I
haven't, I will soon.)

> Anyway, I climb to the ground.  If anyone would like to re-attach The
> Revolving Shed, I'd appreciate it.  If not ... well, it might be vaguely
> amusing to live on an empty kaa of land.

If my GM is not stuck to whatever building it was stuck to before, I'll go
over to the Revolving Shed, affix the Monopole to it, and with an intense
stare of bravado push the red button.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Spike Jones:Cocktails For Two
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Suicidal twin kills brother by mistake.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #298
*******************************