Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #308
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Thursday, September 18 1997     Volume 02 : Number 308

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:56:14 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

I would, if I may, like to elaborate and dispute some of ThinMan's
comments, since he has quoted my reasoning, or part of it, in his claim:

> ThinMan's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 1 forbids that it be "changed in any way."  I claim that changing
> rule 1's number is one manner of changing rule 1, and is, therefore,
> forbidden by rule 1.
> 
> There is some confusion on this matter; principally, I think, because
> rule 303 specifies that rule numbers are unownable entities.  Balsamic
> Dragon has asserted that from that specification it follows that rule
> numbers are not, in fact, any part of the rule they are associated with,
> to the extent that changing a rule's number in no way constitutes
> changing that rule itself.  To my knowledge, there is no other
> indication in the rules or game custom that rule numbers are so totally
> divorced from the rules themselves.  There are, however, numerous
> indications to the contrary.

Rule 42 is an excellent indication of a rule which recognizes the danger of
number change and moves to counter it.  Vulcan could have easily placed
such a provision in their rule, however, they did not.

Rule 303 indicates that a rule number is be created after the rule itself
is created.  This would be circumstantial evidence that the two are
separate entities.

Rule 342, describing the Spelling Bee, shows that the Spelling Bee has the
power to make changes in the rules.  Noticeably absent from the list of
disallowed stingings is the fact that the Spelling Bee cannot change a rule
number.  However, I think that it would be obvious that it cannot, since a
rule number is not really part of the rule.

Finally, Rule 500 states, in pertinant part, "Entities may not be broken
into fractional pieces, and fractional pieces of entities may not be
created."  Rule numbers are not, therefor, a "part" of a rule.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:44:23 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> I would, if I may, like to elaborate and dispute some of ThinMan's
> comments, since he has quoted my reasoning, or part of it, in his
> claim:
> 
By all means.

> > Rule 1 forbids that it be "changed in any way."  I claim that
> changing
> > rule 1's number is one manner of changing rule 1, and is, therefore,
> > forbidden by rule 1.
> > 
> > There is some confusion on this matter; principally, I think,
> because
> > rule 303 specifies that rule numbers are unownable entities.
> Balsamic
> > Dragon has asserted that from that specification it follows that
> rule
> > numbers are not, in fact, any part of the rule they are associated
> with,
> > to the extent that changing a rule's number in no way constitutes
> > changing that rule itself.  To my knowledge, there is no other
> > indication in the rules or game custom that rule numbers are so
> totally
> > divorced from the rules themselves.  There are, however, numerous
> > indications to the contrary.
> 
> Rule 42 is an excellent indication of a rule which recognizes the
> danger of
> number change and moves to counter it.  Vulcan could have easily
> placed
> such a provision in their rule, however, they did not.
> 
This is true, but irrelevant.

> Rule 303 indicates that a rule number is be created after the rule
> itself
> is created.  This would be circumstantial evidence that the two are
> separate entities.
> 
Woah!  I think this claim requires a little more justification.  Can
you elaborate, please, on just how rule 303 indicates that the rule
number is created _after_ the rule?  As far as I can tell, rule 303
says no such thing.  The interpretation of rule 303 that I asserted
to be correct is, in fact, in conflict with your claim above, so can
you explain just how you are interpreting the rule, and/or where we
differ on that interpretation?

> Rule 342, describing the Spelling Bee, shows that the Spelling Bee has
> the
> power to make changes in the rules.  Noticeably absent from the list
> of
> disallowed stingings is the fact that the Spelling Bee cannot change a
> rule
> number.  However, I think that it would be obvious that it cannot,
> since a
> rule number is not really part of the rule.
> 
This is no evidence at all.  First, rule 342 specifies that the
Spelling Bee replaces mispelled _words_ with correctly spelled ones.
Rule numbers are not words.  Moreover, absence of "changing rule
numbers" from the list of impermissible stingings in no way indicates
that rule numbers are not part of the rules.  Indeed, supposing that we
agree that the Spelling Bee cannot change rule numbers, and disregard
the fact that rule numbers are not words, I claim that the reason that
the numbers cannot be stung is that they are part of the rules, and
therefore cannot be changed except as specified by the rules.  R342
specifies several permissible changes to the rules that the Spelling
Bee may make, and changing rule numbers is not among them, therefore
the Spelling Bee may not change rule numbers.

> Finally, Rule 500 states, in pertinant part, "Entities may not be
> broken
> into fractional pieces, and fractional pieces of entities may not be
> created."  Rule numbers are not, therefor, a "part" of a rule.
> 
"Part of" is not the same as "fractional piece of."  Those provisions
have always been interpreted to apply specifically to things like
dividing ackadollars into ackapennies.  The rest of that paragraph
makes things a little clearer in that regard.  Interpreting rule 500
so that it forbids rule numbers from being parts of rules would be
broadening its scope well beyond the current interpretation (which, of
course, is not forbidden, but is also by no means required).  But what
would be the ramifications?  As far as rule 500 goes, there is nothing
special about rule numbers being entities that would cause rule 500 to
come into play specifically for them.  If we interpret rule 500 as
Balsamic Dragon suggests then we will have to allow that rule titles
are not parts of their rules either.  Indeed, we must even say the same
for the words and sentences with which the rules are written.  I think
that the words, at least, must be interpreted as parts of the rules, if
only because the Spelling Bee changes the rules by changing the words
in them, thus BD's suggested reinterpretation of rule 500 is far too
broad in scope.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:46:16 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka gaol

this reason, Robert Sevin, at least, was placed in Gaol
recently.  I believe the Gaoler has a duty here too.

Malenkai

Yeah1 I'm sorry i Didn't know about the swing points for the newest harfer
Mal, 
Robert Sevin is placed in Gao;, It's Gaol colored
- - Karma

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:06:19 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

> > Finally, Rule 500 states, in pertinant part, "Entities may not be
> > broken
> > into fractional pieces, and fractional pieces of entities may not be
> > created."  Rule numbers are not, therefor, a "part" of a rule.
> > 
> "Part of" is not the same as "fractional piece of."  Those provisions
> have always been interpreted to apply specifically to things like
> dividing ackadollars into ackapennies.  The rest of that paragraph
> makes things a little clearer in that regard.  Interpreting rule 500
> so that it forbids rule numbers from being parts of rules would be
> broadening its scope well beyond the current interpretation (which, of
> course, is not forbidden, but is also by no means required).  But what
> would be the ramifications?  As far as rule 500 goes, there is nothing
> special about rule numbers being entities that would cause rule 500 to
> come into play specifically for them.  If we interpret rule 500 as
> Balsamic Dragon suggests then we will have to allow that rule titles
> are not parts of their rules either.  Indeed, we must even say the same
> for the words and sentences with which the rules are written.  I think
> that the words, at least, must be interpreted as parts of the rules, if
> only because the Spelling Bee changes the rules by changing the words
> in them, thus BD's suggested reinterpretation of rule 500 is far too
> broad in scope.
> 
Rule Titles, words within the rules and sentences within the rules are not
entities.
Rule numbers, on the other hand, are.  What I am saying is that since they
are described as separate entities, they should be treated as such. 
Judging that rule numbers are separate entities would not affect our
current interpretation of other parts of the rules.  

However, I think the important issue is being side-steped here.  Vulcan
attempted to make a rule which would be completely unassailable.  That was
obviously their intent, and if we judge merely by their intent, then there
is no way to change rule 1.  However, they clearly left out an important
protection, and one that has been used before.  In this, and most Ackanomic
judgements, the bias of the judge should be towards what is allowable
because it is not specifically forbidden, not towards what Vulcan meant to
forbid.  Rule 1 is nearly the ultimate authority, but shouldn't the players
of Ackanomic have some small authority themselves?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> However, I think the important issue is being side-steped here.  Vulcan
> attempted to make a rule which would be completely unassailable.  That was
> obviously their intent, and if we judge merely by their intent, then there
> is no way to change rule 1.  However, they clearly left out an important
> protection, and one that has been used before.  In this, and most Ackanomic
> judgements, the bias of the judge should be towards what is allowable
> because it is not specifically forbidden, not towards what Vulcan meant to
> forbid.  Rule 1 is nearly the ultimate authority, but shouldn't the players
> of Ackanomic have some small authority themselves?
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 

I must object to this.  It is most certainly not clear if Rule 1 left out
the so called important protection.  Determining whether or not this is
true is in large part the reason for this CFJ.  Also, I don't see where
you ever got the impression that judgements in Acka should be biased in
any way.  Judgements are supposed to be in accordance with the rules, with
no bias whatsoever.  When the rules are unclear, as they oh so often are,
then it is the duty of the judge to try and determine if the rules
in fact forbid some action or event.  Never should they decide that
something is allowable simply because it is not immediately clear whether
it is forbidden or not.  Indeed, it is only when they are certain that
the rules do not forbid something that they can return a judgement
saying that an action is allowable.  It is true that the judges should pay
absolutely no attention to Vulcan's intent of creating an inalterable
rule.  It is equaly important, however, that they ignore your intentions
in proposing the rule number change.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]
Note how we are all already assuming that this will see more than one
judge... =)

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:28:54 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

Also, I don't see where
> you ever got the impression that judgements in Acka should be biased in
> any way.  Judgements are supposed to be in accordance with the rules,
with
> no bias whatsoever.  When the rules are unclear, as they oh so often are,
> then it is the duty of the judge to try and determine if the rules
> in fact forbid some action or event.  Never should they decide that
> something is allowable simply because it is not immediately clear whether
> it is forbidden or not.  Indeed, it is only when they are certain that
> the rules do not forbid something that they can return a judgement
> saying that an action is allowable.  It is true that the judges should
pay
> absolutely no attention to Vulcan's intent of creating an inalterable
> rule.  It is equaly important, however, that they ignore your intentions
> in proposing the rule number change.
> 

My apologies, when I used the term "bias," I meant it in a legal context,
not in the commonly used meaning.  Sorry, I must have been typing too many
briefs!  What I meant was that, if the rules are not clear, and you or I
may both argue that they are clear, the judge should rule on the side of
allowing a change, rather than disallowing it.  This follows from the "what
ever is not expicitly prohibited ..." phrase in Rule 101.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:43:12 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> Rule Titles, words within the rules and sentences within the rules are
> not
> entities.
> Rule numbers, on the other hand, are.  What I am saying is that since
> they
> are described as separate entities, they should be treated as such. 
> Judging that rule numbers are separate entities would not affect our
> current interpretation of other parts of the rules. 
> 
But they are not described as "seperate" entities.  That is entirely
the point of CFJ 465, and the center of our current disagreement.  If
rule numbers are not, in fact, parts of their rules then I agree that
they can be changed by other rules.  I do not think, that it is correct
to say that rule numbers are not parts of their rules, however, their
entityhood notwithstanding.  I gave a justification for my position in
the CFJ 465 reasoning.  I grant that I am not impartial in this regard,
but that is not the reason for my opinion, just my motivation for
persuing the issue.

> However, I think the important issue is being side-steped here.
> Vulcan
> attempted to make a rule which would be completely unassailable.  That
> was
> obviously their intent, and if we judge merely by their intent, then
> there
> is no way to change rule 1.  However, they clearly left out an
> important
> protection, and one that has been used before.  In this, and most
> Ackanomic
> judgements, the bias of the judge should be towards what is allowable
> because it is not specifically forbidden, not towards what Vulcan
> meant to
> forbid.  Rule 1 is nearly the ultimate authority, but shouldn't the
> players
> of Ackanomic have some small authority themselves?
> 
As has already been discussed, Vulcan's intent is not the issue here,
nor is it really even relevant.  I disagree that Vulcan left out an
important protection.  Indeed, when we (I) were drafting what is now
rule 1, we intentionally did not mentional renumbering specifically,
under the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that it would be covered under
the "changed in any way" provision.  The wording of R303 casts at
least some doubt on whether that assumption was correct, but I still
believe that it was.  I do not think that the alternative definitions
are so equally balanced that the judge need resort to bias (in the
legal sense).  Moreover, any bias that might indeed exist is provided
by the spirit of the game, which is more-or-less whatever the judge
says it is.

It was impossible to anticipate every manner of attack, so the strategy
was to attempt to block broad classes of attack.  I regarded numbering
as a side issue, as it would always be possible to change the
precedence rules so that numbering would have no effect, or a different
one.  Guy Fawkes' approach is, in my opinion, more likely to be
successful, although I am currently exploring avenues along which to
challenge it, too.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:44:10 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Entities?  What entities?

Does anyone have a good reason why rule numbers need to continue to be
entities?  How about the rules themselves?  Offices?

Is this just the current implementation of protection?  If so, I'm not
sure it is necessary.  Unless I hear a good reason to keep these
things as entities, I will propose to revoke their entityhood.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:25:28 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Going home

I am leaving the Hall of Elders and going home.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:09:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket & Treasure

I am burying the Exquisite Dead Guy as a treasure again.

This treasure will be found by the first player to privately mail me
the solution (quotation and word list) to the puzzle below.  Be warned
that most of the entries have more than one word, and the two clues
followed by question marks indicate the crummy phrases I had to use
to use of the rest of the letters; most of the others follow a nice
theme, though.

1a-2e-3b-4e-5n 6d-7h-8e-9o 10a-11n 12i 13n-14g-15a-16k-17h 18i

19a-20e-21l-22f 23f-24e-25h-26f-27l 28n-29k-30g-31m-32e 33a-34g-35g-36g

37j-38e-39a-40e-41d-42m-43h 44k-45h-46g 47h-48h-49m-50f-51d-52j 53m-54g

55g-56i-57i-58m-59j 60h-61g-62a-63a-64b-65i-66l 67k-68g-69l 70k-71o-72l-73g

74d-75k-76b-77m 78k-79d 80h-81o-82g-83l 84a-85l-86h-87g-88h 89c-90d

91a-92i-93n-94o-95a-96m 97h-98m 99m-100o-101n 102i-103m-104m-105m

106m-107k-108i-109o 110l-111m-112h 113f-114f-115c-116j 117m-118a-119l-120h

121d-122a-123j-124n 125g-126j-127e-128d-129f-130i

131j-132c-133b-134i-135i-136a-137k-138a-139g

140m-141g-142o-143f-144g-145d-146l-147a 148k-149f-150c-151g-152a

153i-154e-155g-156d 157b-158h-159d

a. Full name of the
   source of the quote 63-136-1-147-84-15-152-118-95-19-122-91-10-39-138-33-62

b. Pink Floyd song  133-64-76-3-157

c. One-named singer  89-150-115-132

d. Cause of muddy carpet?  41-128-159-74-145-121-79-156-6-90-51

e. Rolling Stones song  8-38-154-40-20-32-4-24-2-127

f. Flutelike instruments  50-26-23-114-143-22-129-149-113

g. Movie and TV series
   set in Miss.  144-151-36-87-141-34-82-35-125-30-54-155-14-46-68-61-139-55-73

h. Cars song  80-158-7-97-86-60-88-43-45-17-47-48-25-112-120

i. Beatles song  92-12-57-135-102-134-153-18-108-65-56-130

j. Yes song  37-126-123-59-116-52-131

k. Queen song  78-148-67-107-70-137-44-75-16-29

l. Loud newspaper?  21-110-85-27-83-69-72-119-146-66

m. Moody Blues song  117-49-42-96-77-104-99-58-98-140-103-105-111-53-106-31

n. Bon Jovi song, or another song from the 60's  124-101-11-93-13-28-5

o. A candy bar  100-71-81-9-94-142-109

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:08:00 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Entities?  What entities?

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Does anyone have a good reason why rule numbers need to continue to be
> entities?  How about the rules themselves?  Offices?
> 
> Is this just the current implementation of protection?  If so, I'm not
> sure it is necessary.  Unless I hear a good reason to keep these
> things as entities, I will propose to revoke their entityhood.
> 
> ThinMan

I think rules should be tradable. Think how much money the treasury 
could make by selling off this inefficient monopoly.

**two-star

btw, I am having the darndest time finding where rules are defined as 
entities, (or defined at all,) in the rules. A keyword search on "rule" 
is not useful :) This is something that may be helpful if I choose to 
accept cfj 465. Also, is there any other precedent for an entity being 
part of, or associated with another entity? None has been given in the 
cfj reasoning or related disscussion to this point.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:45:27 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Entities?  What entities?

Two-star wrote:

> btw, I am having the darndest time finding where rules are defined as 
> entities, (or defined at all,) in the rules. A keyword search on
> "rule" 
> is not useful :) This is something that may be helpful if I choose to 
> accept cfj 465. Also, is there any other precedent for an entity being
> 
> part of, or associated with another entity? None has been given in the
> 
> cfj reasoning or related disscussion to this point.
> 
Rules are defined to be unownable entities in rule 500.  According to
rule 500, the rule set is also an unownable entity.  I would say that
the rules are indeed part of the rule set.  I hadn't noticed this yet
when I wrote the CFJ 465 reasoning, otherwise I would have included it
there.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:56:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Entities?  What entities?

>I think rules should be tradable. Think how much money the treasury 
>could make by selling off this inefficient monopoly.

  Funny, I was just thinking the same thing...
  (Collectible Trading Rules?)

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Quorum failure

The following players, in addition to losing 5 points, are now in
possession of a Puppet Head:

Calvin N Hobbes
/dev/joe
Guy Fawkes
Karma
mr cwm
Red Barn
Robert Sevin
Oneiros
Vynd

Puppet Heads are regulated by Rule 207.

breadbox
your friendly Tabulator

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Quorum achievement

I am happy that none of our players have actually been issued Puppet
Heads, nor penalized points, and that do in fact have a quorum.

Nonetheless, we are just barely squeezing by. So, in the words of
Proposal 358: "Vote or I'll kick your ass".

breadbox
good Tabulator, bad Tabulator

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:44:32 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka swing points

there only seems yo be 4 party chess players so each player gets ten swing
points
- - Karma (harf swinger)

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #308
*******************************