Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #305
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Monday, September 15 1997      Volume 02 : Number 305

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:10:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 453 Verdict

CFJ 453 has been upheld(FALSE).  25 point penalty to the appealer.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 453
  Subject: Empowering the Vulcan Party
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Ben (left the game)
2nd Judge: Vynd (selected Sep 02, 1997, 21:14h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE
 Appealed: Niccolo Flychuck
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

Rule 1 does not empower the Vulcan Party to change the rules.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

Having been enlightened by ThinMan insistence of ambiguity, I'd
like to direct the judge's attention to the reasoning or CFJ 452.
The four cases presented are indeed intriguing. Two of them are
trivially false - the ones that claim that either the Vulcan Party,
that is the Organization whose name is Vulcan and owns a Big Tent
and whose membership at the time of invoking this CFJ (/dev/joe,
ThinMan, Malenkai, Vynd), or the Organization founded by Alfvaen
with the name "The organization vulcan" capitalization, by rule,
notwithstanding, have the power to change the rules while the other
ones doesn't, ask us to choose a single interpretation to an
obviously ambigous refference, where neither interpretation has any
advantage over the other. The two other interpretations may appear
to balance each other out but they do not. One suggests that both
Organizations have the power to change the rules, the other
suggests that neither has the power to change rules. Of these two,
the former attempt to manipulate regulated constructs, ie,
Organizational Actions, in ways which are not present anywhere
within the rules, and the results of such attempt would be
obviously paradoxical, while the latter, will not allow any such
manipulation, and by that virtue is the least paradoxical not only
of the two bilateral options, but also of all the options presented
so eloquently by ThinMan and refferenced here.

It is also my opinion that a verdict of True on CFJ452 will
strongly suggest a verdict of true on this CFJ.

Vynd's Reasoning:

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

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

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

ThinMan's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niccolo Flychuck's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

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

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

Niccolo Flychuck's Appeal Reasoning:

I'm appealing this one, even though it may be mute by the time we
get a decision. For reasoning. Please refer to my original
reasoning on the CFJ, and the Bronze Torch reasoning I added
(although possibly it was to CFJ 452, they were closely related),
and perhaps to the discussion I carried on aboutthis matter.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

It needs to be emphasized that ambiguity in the Rules is not in and of
itself a valid reason for declaring a Rule to be ineffective. When a
Rule is found to be ambiguous, by one player or all, it is necessary
to apply game custom (et al.) to find a proper interpretation. Ideally
this should be one that appeals to the reason and common sense of
every involved party, but when this is not possible, the Judge in
question is still charged with interpreting the meaning of the
Rules. If it is truly impossible to find one interpretation that can
be in any way favored over all others, then Rule 601 should be
invoked.

Aside from paradox, the only other condition immediately visible to
the Court for considering Rule 1 ineffectual would be if it clearly
named no existing entity as its subject. For example, if Rule 1 had
named "The Big Herring I'hypna" as being empowered to alter the Rules,
it would have been unambiguous to all that no currently existing
entity was so named, and Rule 1 would have had no effect (at least
temporarily).

This, however, is not true for the case under consideration here. And
as the Court has chosen to uphold a TRUE verdict on CFJ 452, it must
therefore uphold the original FALSE verdict of this CFJ.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Collapsing Threads

Some notes on the final collapsing of the game threads (presuming CFJs
452 and 453 are not appealed further):

Proposal 2285 was invalidated, and was not voted on (so no score
changes occurred there).

Proposal 2287 was never retracted, and was voted down.

Rule 1 exists in the form that is being debated in CFJ 461.

Rule 719 was modified by Vulcan; the CotC is responsible for
maintaining a list of Zuriti'ili Guidelines.

CFJ 458 and CFCJ 141 both had thread-dependent reasonings. I am not
sure what is the "right" thing to do with respect to the CFJ archive.
For the time being I have removed the reasoning that was marked as
being for the threads that have collapsed, since they never existed.

Anything else that I forgot to mention?

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:15:08 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 Appeal Verdict

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

> 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.
> 

Does this mean my HTML Standard cannot define characters? :(

**two-star

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:39:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 Verdict

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

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

I exercising my privelege as a Justice to decline to sit on the Court for 
only this CFJ to avoid possible coi, and let an Acting Justice consider 
it in my stead.

GF

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

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:17:17 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[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.
> 
I approve of this (apart from the bottom of the earth bit, as we're their
already), and will be glad to join your expedition.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:19:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato + Aliens

ThinMan has found the magic potato.

Alien rolls:

701
1433
198

No primes, no majiks, and no rules.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #305
*******************************