Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #304
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Monday, September 15 1997      Volume 02 : Number 304

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 08:42:20 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big White Gazette, Special Edition

> The Big White Gazette would like to remind those who have not entered
that
> there is still time, since neither /dev/joe nor Vynd seem likely to rise
> into the Top 50 in the next three weeks.  That URL again is:
> 
Okay, I've entered.  My label is Ultima Records.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:22:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 144 Verdict

CFJ 144 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 144
  Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: two-star (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (assigned Sep 09, 1997, 16:10h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Vynd has committed a Crime.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning:

This is the third of these accusations of Zuriti'ili.  Although he is
probably the least culpable of the Vulcans, he chose to affliate himself
with Vulcan to share in the Zuriti'ili *spit*, and so must suffer the
same fate as the rest of the organization.

Suggested Penalty:

10 days in Gaol.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

We are fairly certain that CFCJ 137 was the third instance of this crime,
thus CFCJ 142 coupled with this one constitutes the 5th occurrance (keeping
with the simultaneous prime business.  Hence there is no choice but to
judge TRUE.

As for the penalty, it is this Judge's opinion that the action the defendent
stands accused of was actually good for the game, or at least it livened it
up a bit.  Witness the level of play before, during, and after the alledged
crime.  I will leave it to those who called this a crime to offer lines of 
play that will liven up the game, then.
 
Actual Penalty:

A DEDUCTION of 0 points from player X's score.

New Guideline:

The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least once.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:32:32 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Patch rules

Interesting rules from the Patch...

4.116 

        NO MORE WAR PIGS HAVE THE POWER 

There shall be a War Crimes Tribunal in the Patch. The WCT shall be
empowered to brand as a War Criminal any Seedling or Player of the Pumpkin
Patch Nomic game who is convicted of War Crimes. The current list of War
Crimes consists of the following: 

1. Having at any time been a member of the Vulcan Party in Ackanomic
resulting in oppression of the gentler, more creative and intelligent
members of Ackanomic. 

>This is an exclusive list of War Crimes. Any player or seedling who is
accused of War Crimes may be removed from the mailing list, however the
trial will commence regardless of whether or not they try to quit and if
convicted of War Crimes, they will be perpetual zombies and may never vote,
hold office or judge a cfj in the Pumpkin Patch Nomic game. 

 Sept 7 1997 

8.112 

Patch mind control of Ackanomic 

      The Pumpkin Patch shall immediatly commence mind control operations
against Ackanomic. All players must spend three hours a day astrally
projecting visions of great catastrophies that shall befall ackanomic if
she does not follow the will fo the patch to the smallest detail. The
Pumpkin must spend 25 hours a day astrally projecting his demands for
Ackanomic. The Grape must spend 15 minutes a week writing a messge to the
internomic forum placing those demands before the world community (but not
the threatened catastrophies, those are private, and only for Ackanomic). 

Furthermore, The Pumpkin Patch shall immediately move to the bottom side of
the earth. The GRAPE is required to make this fact known in internomic as
well. 

Seeing as how Acka already has a number of disasters and catastrophes built
into the rules, it will be interesting to see what the effects of the
Patch's mind control is...I myself have already received visions of a great
tornado coming, but from where I am not sure....

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:10:49 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the Patch

As a member of the Committee for Understanding, I propose that, after the
tornado has passed, said Committee should mount an expedition across the
wilds of ackanomic to the bottom side of the earth to speak with the
patchkins.

In preparation for this great adventure, I am spending A$100 to purchase
the wings mutation in case we have to travel over any mountain ranges,
rivers, etc.  

I invite my collegue, the esteemed founder of the CFU, Guy Fawkes, to
endorse this expedition, and I invite any brave souls who wish to accompany
me to join the Committee for Understanding.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:05:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the Patch

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> As a member of the Committee for Understanding, I propose that, after the
> tornado has passed, said Committee should mount an expedition across the
> wilds of ackanomic to the bottom side of the earth to speak with the
> patchkins.
> 
> In preparation for this great adventure, I am spending A$100 to purchase
> the wings mutation in case we have to travel over any mountain ranges,
> rivers, etc.  
> 
> I invite my collegue, the esteemed founder of the CFU, Guy Fawkes, to
> endorse this expedition, and I invite any brave souls who wish to accompany
> me to join the Committee for Understanding.
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 

I applaud this idea.  I feel I must point out, however, that we are
already on the bottom side of the Earth.  Indeed, with the Earth being
hemispherical and all, we live on the ONLY side of the Earth.  This
shouldn't prevent you from seeking out the patchkins of course.  As a
Retired Evil Overlord of Ackanomic, and accused War Criminal, I am sure
you can understnad why I will not be joining you.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:30:43 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the Patch

> I applaud this idea.  I feel I must point out, however, that we are
> already on the bottom side of the Earth.  Indeed, with the Earth being
> hemispherical and all, we live on the ONLY side of the Earth.  This
> shouldn't prevent you from seeking out the patchkins of course.  As a
> Retired Evil Overlord of Ackanomic, and accused War Criminal, I am sure
> you can understnad why I will not be joining you.
> 
> 
Hmmm, well that means I don't have to figure out how to get to the other
side then.  (I was thinking maybe a big winch to swing us over the rim...) 
They must be off in the wilds somewhere.  I thank you for your support and
I will, with your permission, use your show of good will on the "war
criminals" behalf when dealing with the patchkins. 

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:39:51 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: proposal 555

Begin Proposal:

Create Rule 555 entitled
Buckin' for Promotion

delimited by HAHA

HAHA
A valid Rule number is one or two positive integers.  All rules which have
an invalid rule number are repealed.
HAHA

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:41:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 Verdict

I am appealing the CFJ to the Supreme Court (the real one).  My appeal
reasoning follows after the quotes.

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 461 has been judged FALSE.  Would the Financier please note
> the transfer of an A$60 court fee fron the initiator to the CotC
> as described in rule 620 (assuming it was a PWCFJ, which always 
> seems to be a point of contention...)
> 
> 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: FALSE
> 
> 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.
> 
> /dev/joe's Reasoning:
> 
> The first part of Guy Fawkes's reasoning is correct.  Rules 1 and 255
> conflict with each other over the legality of the action described in
> the statement.  They also conflict on the issue of resolving their
> conflict.  Rule 102 also has something to say about this conflict,
> and indeed conflicts with those two rules about how to resolve the
> conflict.  It states:
> 
>  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. 
> 
> It is true that in a conflict between rule 1 and rule 102, rule 1 wins,
> and in a conflict between rule 102 and rule 255, rule 255 wins, in both
> cases because the second sentence of rule 102 allows the other rule's
> precedence statement to hold.  However, when rules 1, 102, and 255 all
> disagree about some point (how to resolve the *other* conflict in
> rules 1 and 255, as well as how to resolve the conflict among conflict
> resolution methods in all three rules) Rule 102 leads to a different
> result.  The "rules other than this one" are rules 102 and 255, and they
> don't agree on how to resolve the conflict, so we follow the "Otherwise"
> clause.  The rule with the lowest rule number takes precedence.
> 
> While it is possible to apply rule 102 to rules in pairs, I find that
> it is not reasonable to do so when more than two rules conflict.
> Indeed, it is entirely possible for rule 102 to assign non-transitive
> precedences when you consider three rules pairwise -- consider if
> rule 197 claimed precedence over rule 198, rule 198 claimed precedence
> over rule 199, and rule 199 claimed precedence over rule 197.  If you
> consider these rules pairwise, rule 102 would allow the precedence
> claims to stand, and not resolve the case when all three rules conflicted
> on a single point. Thus I find that the only reasonable interpretation
> of Rule 102 is that it *must* be applied to all the conflicting rules
> at once, rather than considering them pairwise or whatever, when three
> or more rules conflict.  [I'll note that the possibility of such
> non-transitive precedence has been considered at least as far back as
> when I was a member of the Nobs party... for this reason, we left the
> "two or more rules" wording in this rule when we were drafting proposals
> to change this part of the rules.]
> 
> So I must consider all rules that are in conflict.  Rule 835 (Locations)
> agrees with rule 1 that the player would be able to enter Vulcan
> Headquarters (because rule 1 defines VHQ as a Common Location).
> Rule 1309 would conflict if VHQ was dangling, but it is not and was not
> at the time the CFJ was submitted.  However, on the issue of precedence
> between rules 1, 255, 835 (and with or without rule 1309), exactly three
> rules have something to say.  Rule 1 says it takes precedence.  Rule 102
> says (as above) that rule 1 takes precedence.  Rule 255 says Rule 255
> takes precedence.  In the conflict between these three rules over what
> precedence system should hold, again rule 1's system is favored in two
> out of three cases. While it still is not absolutely clear which rule
> takes precedence, I find that the relevant rules are 2-to-1 in favor
> of rule 1 having precedence, and thus it is not "equally" legal and
> illegal as the statement of this CFJ proposes.  Furthermore, if there
> is any game custom to consider in this area, it is that rule 102 would
> be called upon to resolve any otherwise unresolvable conflicts, making
> the legal and illegal cases even less equally likely.
> 

Vynd's reasoning:

I think there is no real dispute about the existance of a conflict, and
what exactly the paradox that is claimed to exist is, so I won't spend
much time going over it.  Rather, I will attempt to show why I disagree
with /dev/joe's reading of the Rules.

/dev/joe is claiming that since "rules other than this one" [Rule 102],
cannot resolve the conflict, then Rule 102's statement that the lowest
numbered rule takes precedence dictates that Rule 1 has precedence over
Rule 255.  I agree with this entirely.

What I think /dev/joe is overlooking is the fact that Rule 102, while
stating that this is what should occur, lacks the power to make it happen.
By claiming that Rule 255 must yield to Rule 1, Rule 102 comes into
conflict with Rule 255's precedence clause.  Rule 102 is saying that Rule
255 does not ahve precedence over everything, while Rule 255 is saying
that it does.  when we go to resolve this conflict, we find that Rule 255
clearly has precedence over Rule 102, so Rule 102 fails to actually
dismepower Rule 255 in this situation.  Certainly he fails to address this
issue in his reasoning.

Instead, /dev/joe presents us with an arguement as to how he must deal
with all the conflicting rules as a whole, rather than resolving them
individualy.  It's a good arguement, I can't say I am totaly convinced but
let us assume he is correct for the time being, and examine the last
paragraph of this justification for a FALSE ruling.  Here /dev/joe admits
that, even when one deals with the conflicting rules as a whole, it is
still not absolutely clear which rule takes precedence.  This right here
should, in my mind, probably be enough to call for a verdict of TRUE, but
/dev/joe asserts that since two of the three rules would allow the act
which is supposedly equally legal and illegal, it is more legal than it is
illegal and the statement is FALSE.  Frankly, I don't really see how this
follows from any of /dev/joe's earlier arguements as to how to resolve the
conflict.  He admits that the conflict is not in fact resolved, which
certainly implies that the paradox in the rules remains.  As far as the
opinion that when two rules say something is legal and on only disagrees
that means that something is more legal than illegal, well, an opinion is
all that it is.  I cannot see anything in the rules to back such an
assertion up.  There isn't anything explicit on the matter in game custom
either, but I would direct the justices' attention to recent debates over
the meaning of the phrase "The Vulcan party" in the former Rule 1, and
whether or not "least paradoxical" was a valid criterion on which to base
a judgement.

Finally /dev/joe wraps up by seeming to say that interpretations of the
rules where the stated action would be equally legal and illegal are
unlikely because game custom calls for Rule 102 to resolve such conflicts
when they are otherwise unresolvable.  This is simply not true, for it is
Rule 102 itself that calls for Rule 102 to resolve these conflicts.  And
whether it is game custom or the rules that call for the use of Rule 102,
that certainly doesn't mean that Rule 102 is actually capable of resolving
such conflicts.

Thus, /dev/joe appears to be telling us that since the conflict is
supposed to be resolved by Rule 102, it is.  He does not explain how Rule
102 does so, indeed he states that it is not really possible to tell which
Rule takes precedence, essentially admiting that there is a paradox.  His
judgement of FALSE, so far as I can see, is based purely on an
interpretation of the situation in which the act in question is not
equally legal and illegal, but rather somewhat less illegal than it is
legal.  As I have already stated, I see no justification for such a stance
in the rules or in game custom.

/dev/joe did raise some interesting points as to how the rules tell us to
go about resolving a conflict such as this, points which I accepted for
the sake of my earlier arguement but which I would like to address now.
I think /dev/joe is entirely correct when he says that the conflicts must
be looked at as a whole, not as seperate pairs of rules in conflict.
Since this seems to be what he is trying to base his later arguements on,
although I admit I do not see the connection, I wanted to address the
issue myself.  In a situation like this, say the example /dev/joe gave
above, Rule 102 would normaly just go to rule numbers and that would be
the end of it.  This situation is actually more complicated, because one
of the conflicts can be resolved thourhg the use of other rules, the
conflict between Rule 102 and 255, and thereby render the other conflict
unresolvable.  It is here that /dev/joe's "all at once" principle is
crucial, because it allows us to say that since ALL the conflicts have not
been resolved, then we are allowed to move past the "use other rules"
clause of 102 to the "lowest number precedence" clause and resolve the
conflicts.  The problem is that it still doesn't WORK.  Rule 102 simply
lacks the power to impose this solution on Rule 255.  every time we get to
the point where it does so, by resolving the conflicts as a group rather
than seperately, it reintroduces the same conflict, which is then
resolved, which then reintroduces the same conflict, etc...  Thus the
conflict is never actually resolved, indeed one could assert that it is
paradoxicaly both resolved and not resolved at the same time.  I think it
would be more accurate, however, to simply say that if resolving a
conflict has the effect of recreating the conflict, then the conflict is
not in fact resolved at all.  In either case, we are left with the fact
that Rule 255 and Rule 1 are in conflict, and there is no way to resolve
the conflict.  So long as this is true then it appears equally legal
and illegal for a evil overlord of Ackanomic (retired) who is on vacation
to enter Vulcan HQ, and thus this CFJ should be judged TRUE.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:46:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 Verdict

> I am appealing the CFJ to the Supreme Court (the real one).  My appeal
> reasoning follows after the quotes.

The way I read the rules, I still get my court fee ;-)

Malenkai
greedy

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:07:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 452 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 452 has been upheld(TRUE).  The justices did not penalize the
appealers, meaning 25 points (I think).

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 452
  Subject: The organization Vulcan
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Balsamic Dragon (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (assigned Sept 05, 1997, 21:23h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE
 Appealed: Alfvaen and Niccolo Flychuck
   Appeal: TRUE
   
Statement:

The organization named "The organization Vulcan" was at no time
empowered by the rules to change the rules.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

IF CFJ 450 is judged true, then this CFJs statement is trivially
true. We will assume, therefore, that CFJ 450 is judged False.

In that case, there is or was a rule 1, entitled "Let's be Clear
About This," which was created on August 26th. The entire text of
this rule 1 is:
     
The organization Vulcan is empowered to, as an organizational
action, make any change whatsoever to the rules or game state.

If ever this rule's number is not 1, its number is immediately
changed to 1.

This rule takes precedence over all other rules except rule 101.

Late August 27th, Alfvaen created an organization named "The
organization Vulcan" and attempted to have it invoke rule 1 to make
several changes to the rules. I claim that rule 1 never empowered
the organization The organization Vulcan to do any such thing.

I assert that between the creation of rule 1 and the creation of
the organization The organization Vulcan [membership: Alfvaen],
rule 1 permitted the organization Vulcan [membership: /dev/joe,
Malenkai, ThinMan, Vynd] to make changes to the rules as an
organizational action. This was the only reasonable interpretation
of the rule that attributed any meaning whatsoever to the first
clause. All public opinion appeared to agree with this
interpretation, which constitutes about as much game custom as can
be ascribed to a new rule.

After Alfvaen created the organization The organization Vulcan
[membership: Alfvaen], there were four possible interpretations of
rule 1:

(1) Rule 1 did not permit either organization to make changes to
the rules.

(2) Rule 1 permitted both organizations to make changes to the
rules.

(3) Rule 1 permitted only the organization The organization Vulcan
[membership: Alfvaen] to change the rules.

(4) Rule 1 permitted only the organization Vulcan [membership:
/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, Vynd] to change the rules.

I do not think interpretation (1) is supportable, but it would
indicate a verdict of True anyway.

The most interesting question, I think, is whether interpretation
(2) is reasonable. I say not. I argue that the words "The
organization Vulcan" in rule 1 specify a single organization; the
rule is open to interpretation about which organization it
specifies, but a single interpretation (one of (3) or (4)) must be
chosen [hence this CFJ]. My further remarks assume that
interpretation (2) is incorrect.

For this CFJ to be judged False implies, then, that the simple
creation of the organization The organization Vulcan [membership:
Alfvaen] caused the correct interpretation of Rule 1 to change. I
find it a dangerous concept that a change in the game state could,
in effect, actuate a change in the Rules, and I hope that the court
will find this an unreasonable interpretation. If so, then this CFJ
is True.

Even if the Court judges that it is _possible_ for the creation of
Alfvaen's organization to change the interpretation of rule 1,
however, the Court must still determine whether it actually did so.
Given the text of rule 1, and two organizations, one named "Vulcan"
and predating the creation of the rule and one named "The
organization Vulcan" and having been created after the rule, to
which organization does the rule then apply? Even if it were
_possible_ that a change in the game state potentially could, in
general, effect a change in the interpretation of the rules, I see
no compelling reason why it should do so in this case. Lacking such
reason, I argue that no change of the correct interpretation
occured, and thus that this CFJ is True.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

CFJ 450 has been judged FALSE, and I find it unlikely, if not
impossible, that that CFJ will be appealed and judged TRUE. Hence
we are left with ThinMan's 4 interpretations, as I do not find any
other ones reasonable enough to consider. Moreover, I agree with
the general thought that (1) and (2) are unreasonable as well as
applied to the time period in question, which spanned the time from
the creation of "the organization Vulcan" to the time the CFJ was
filed.

So the question is simple: which of the following single entities
did rule 1 empower during all or part of that time period: the
Vulcan Party (VP) or the organization Vulcan (oV)?

I was going to spend alot of time explaining and justifiying the
use of game custom, as described in rules 101 and 215. It comes
down to the fact that no one has successfully convinced me that the
rules as written "clearly" empower VP or oV, thus a game custom
interpretation is required by rule 215, as I judge the language in
question in rule 1 to be unclear myself, or at least not clear
without resort to custom in justifying its clarity :)

This situation has been called 'Malenkai's' Loophole' (indeed, it
was called so here): in short, the hijacking of a word or phrase in
the rules by instantiating an entity whose name is lexically
equivelent to the word or phrase, thereby claiming the powers
described in the rules for the named entity or phrase.

In all known successful occurrances of this (as far as I can tell),
there has been no semantic dissonance between the entity doing the
hijacking and the phrase in the rules. In other words, the phrase
(or the entity) either had no game or linguistic meaning, or the
meaning it had was consistent with the meaning of the Malenkai's
loophole entity doing the hijacking (see CFJ 415 for an example of
the no meaning case, and a counterexample of where there *was*
customary meaning, in terms of the RoJ fragments). When I say
'successful' here, I mean that customary interpretation of the rule
fragment in question came to mean the entity in question.

The cases of 'FALSE', 'is', and 'Somewhere Else', OTOH, are not
succssful, because there *is* semantic difference between the
phrase in question and the language of the rules, and while a place
or entity may have had one of these names, the interpretation of
the language in the rules did not change to be interpreted to point
to these new things.

The case of the 'Supreme Court' has yet to be judged, and I am not
judging it here, but I have no reason to believe at this time that
CFJ appeals will start going to that organization all of the
sudden, yet the organization will continue to exist.

In my judgement then, there exists the following principle as
implicit game custom in regards to these things: The meaning of the
language of the rules does not change just because an entity is
instantiated (or renamed) to be lexically equivelent to a word or
phrase in the rules. If, OTOH, the word or phrase had no meaning,
or its meaning was not in conflict with the instantiation (or
renaming), then its meaning was that of the newly-named entity.
Supporting examples include the 'Bronze Torch', 'Vending Machine'
or 'Rock', 'Military lasers', 'Beldin's Parka', 'Somewhere Else',
'is' and 'FALSE'. Any counterexamples would be illumanating towards
the validation or rejection of this hypothesis, but the fact that I
cannot think of any seems to support it.

Lets look at a hypothetical example of this. I quote from rule 101:

> Ackanomic is a self-modifying game of rules. All players must always abide
> by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in
> effect, and interpreted in accordance with current game custom. The term
> "rules", as used in the rules, means the *rules of Ackanomic* [my emphasis].

What does the phrase "rules of Ackanomic" mean? Is that an entity,
or does it have no meaning yet? If I were to change my name to
"rules of Ackanomic", or create an organization or trinket called
"rules of Ackanomic", surely that Malenkai's Loophole entity would
have the powers and effects as described in rule 101 for the "rules
of Ackanomic", right? Why not? Because we already know what the
phrase "rules of Ackanomic" means, even if we now instantiate or
rename a named entity with that name. Likewise, I believe the
"Supreme Court" case will go the same way. If "rules of Ackanomic"
had no semantic meaning, like the 'Military lasers' or 'Beldin's
Parka', then it would work that way, according to the principle of
Ackanomic play outlined above. This principle is also supported, to
some extent, by the principles of standard language use.

Thus, phrases and words in the rules cannot be hijacked unless
there is no semantic dissonace between the phrase and the hijacking
entity.

So there are three possible cases in terms of the phrase 'the
organization Vulcan' at the time oV was created:

1) It meant nothing
2) It meant oV
3) It meant something, but did not mean oV
3a) It meant VP (as a subset of 3)

It is unreasonable to judge that it meant oV before oV was created,
so we are left with 1) or 3). To apply the above principle, if the
phrase had no meaning, then it meant oV when oV was instantiated.
If it had meaning, then its meaning did not change when oV was
instantiated.

We all know what it meant beforehand*. No one has made a bona fide
case that it meant nothing (as in the case of the 'Military
lasers'). If rule 1 had said:

The organization Vulcan is empowered to, as an organizational
action, do all the work of harfing the game.

then this CFJ would not be here. I thus judge that the phrase 'The
organization Vulcan' was *not* devoid of semantic meaning, that
that semantic meaning was in disssonance with oV at the time of its
instantiation, that the principle outlined above is in force in
general, and that there is no compelling legal reason for the oV to
be an exception to that principle, hence my judgement of TRUE.

*Here are some examples from the e-mail archive to justify the
judgement that the phrase in question had semantic meaning that was
known and accepted. All are in the thread with the Acka subject
'Lets be Clear About This', the original post of which brought the
phrase in question into the game. There are no counterexamples in
the archive prior to the attempted change in semantics. (The phrase
came into the Acka game state Aug 26 at 14:37, in the form of a
senate resolution. (It later became part of rule 1 at 18:55 the
same day)). These examples are in the order they appeared after the
phrase was introduced to Acka:

- ---
Alfvaen:

> [quote of the SR snipped]

> Yes, let's get it entirely out in the open, shall we?  Crush the last
> hopes of the Rebellion?  Haven't you watched any of those movies?  In
> our darkest hour, the Force will come to our aid!

> In the meantime, I am requesting admission to the Vulcan Party.

- ---

Niccolo:
     
[The TIE is] almost as good as the members of the defunct Underworld Party

- ---

snowgod:

> I don't object to the fact that the senate (vulcan) made themselves
> dictators. I object to the way it was done.

- ---

ThinMan

> [Vulcan] make no claims about who is better than whom at Nomic.  Nor do we
> seek any such acclaim.  We do have a few items on our agenda, however,
> which we intend to accomplish before we step down.  After all, having
> ultimate power gets stale pretty fast.

- ---

Balsamic Dragon:

> Can I offer a point of view as a new player?  There are two possibilities
> here.  One, the Vulcan Party is going to stay in power for as long as it
> can until people get bored and go away.

- ---

breadbox:
     
> I just want you folks to know that I will be very unhappy if Vulcan
> decides to make some unrelated changes to the Rules that it feels it
> couldn't get 60% approval for.

> I have defended this coup from various mudslingings, in public and in
> private, partly because I don't want to see another Overworld debacle.
> Since SR105, things have been moving more in that direction.

- ---

Balsamic Dragon:

> If it gets through, its only because
> the Vulcan party LET it get through.  I have never played imperialist nomic
> before, (though I understand the concept) but I would rather see the
> dictators stand proud and admit who they are then sink behind a curtain and
> only pop out when it pleases them.  The only real problem I will have with
> this game (and your letter swings awfully close predicting this state) is
> if, after a while, the Vulcan Party picks a winner and steps down.

- ---

In addition, game actions of CFCJ 141 thru 145 unambiguously
identified the the VP, as did IN P 346, all reactions to the phrase
in question, indicating semantic meaning was known and accepted.

Alfvaen's Appeal Reasoning:

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.

Niccolo Flychuck's Appeal 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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

To specifically address the first appealer's concerns, the Court can
do little except point to the key phrase of the Rule in question: "The
organization Vulcan is empowered". "Is" is the singular form of the
verb "to be", and the sentence does not include "any", "every", or a
similar word that implies multiple referents. There is simply nothing
in the rules, game custom, spirit of the game, or common English usage
to suggest that this sentence refers more than one entity.

As to the second appealer's comments, the Court disagrees. The
original judge does dwell on the game state before the creation of the
Organization "The organization Vulcan", true, but only for the purpose
of defending his claim that Rule 1 was unambiguous at that time. The
central point of his case is that the new Organization's existence
does not alter the meaning of Rule 1 where prior meaning had already
been established.

The Court would now like to speak to some of the finer points
mentioned in the reasoning of the original judge.

First and foremost, the Court wishes to emphasize the point that
Malenkai's Loophole cannot be used to summarily uproot the referent of
a term in the rules unless the rules are silent on its meaning in the
first place. Or, more simply put: a term that is defined in the rules
is essentially unassailable.

Game custom cannot usurp the rules, and so Malenkai's Loophole depends
upon having the meaning of a noun phrase fall wholly within the bounds
of game custom (an interpretive filter that is much more malleable and
responsive to the actions of a single player). This is why CFJ 457 had
to be ruled TRUE: The definition of "Supreme Court" is given in Rule
416, and no amount of name collision external to the Ruleset is going
to override that definition.

To a lesser degree, this is also true when Malenkai's Loophole is used
with a term that has a widely-accepted meaning originating in commonly
accepted use of the English language. (This is less impervious as both
rules and game custom are permitted to displace such meanings.) Thus,
because the term "rules of Ackanomic" in Rule 101 has a clear, obvious
meaning favored by common English usage and game custom, significant
changes would have to occur before interpretating it as a trinket's
name could become defensible.

The second point the Court wishes to emphasize is that the least
amount of precedence can be a deciding factor when two disjoint
interpretations are otherwise equally balanced. Taking a snapshot of
the game state at the time this CFJ was invoked as the only context
really gives no satisfactory basis on which Organization Rule 1
referred to. It is only in the full history where we can find useful
criteria. To wit: "The organization Vulcan" had a clear, unambiguous
referent at the time the Rule was created, and for several hours
following. This fact created a miniuscule game-custom interpretation
of Rule 1. Miniuscule but not negligible, because this was essentially
the only reason to prefer the Vulcan Party over Alfvaen's
Organization. And with no way to justifiably interpret Rule 1 to mean
one without excluding the other, that shred of game custom was
literally all the difference.

These two points (a term defined outside the Ruleset, and a temporal
precedence of unambiguity) are important, if not crucial, to
successful usage of Malenkai's Loophole, and the absence of one or
both causes what Malenkai refers to as the "semantic dissonance" that
leaves the interpretation unmoved.

Having made these points, the Court must now confess that there is yet
another piece of game custom that affected the interpretation of Rule
1, and that is the game custom associated with the term "The
organization Vulcan" itself. At the time this CFJ was invoked, Vulcan
had existed as a political party for over a year. It has been an
Organization since the adoption of Proposal 1764. The Court prefers
the game custom directly associated with the interpretation of a Rule,
but if this were absent, this extra piece of game custom would likely
become the deciding factor.

It is important to clarify that the method of quoting from the email
archives used by the original Judge of this matter to show that "the
organization Vulcan" had an unambiguous referent at the time of Rule
1's creation is not, by itself, convincing. Although such comments
strengthen the game custom established by the Vulcan Party's longtime
existence in Ackanomic and the fact that it was the only possible
referrent at the time of Rule 1's creation, in the absence of the
temporal preference had by the Vulcan Party, they would not have made
an effective stand-alone argument.

In this case, they would only have shown that a number of players
thought that a certain interpretation was reasonable during a 24-hour
time period. It has been a long-standing custom in Ackanomic that
where possible, the game should be playable by those who check their
email only once in three days; to say that a game custom can be
established solely by player comments over a one-day period is absurd.
When the game custom already existed, as in this case, player comments
may strengthen it. When the comments are made with little or no
objection over a significantly longer period of time, they may even
establish it. However, in this case, the source of the game custom is
Vulcan's presence at the time the rule was created, and its longtime
existence; comments made by some of the players over such a short
period of time do not custom make.

As the Court has no reasons to disagree with the original verdict, it
rules the statement under judgement to be TRUE.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #304
*******************************