Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #316
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Thursday, September 25 1997     Volume 02 : Number 316

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:32:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Metamorph

I am welcoming you as a new member of MetaMorph

Niccolo Flychuck

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, **Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> I would like to join Metamorph. Very little new creative material has 
> entered the rule set in quite some time it seems. Certainly I don't 
> agree with every proposal Niccolo Flychuck writes, but at least he is 
> tries to put new blood in the rules. Also, after the fall of Munchkin 
> Haven and the disarray of Harf, (well, nothing new there...) I think 
> there is room for another good old fashioned, non-Vulcan party. And I 
> hope this one is the right one for me.
> 
> **two-star
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:39:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Digestion II

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:25:59 +0200 (EET)
> > From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: acka : is there a Rune Maker
> 
> > Did anyone become RuneMaker while I was away. I'm not interested in the
> > job myself, I just thought that now that it's more manageable someone
> > might have volunteered.
> 
> > Of course, there are still some ways to create new Cards without a
> > RuneMaker
> 
> I think it would still be nice to get the actual frequencies of existing
> card-types established first.  (Do we want to still have instance limits as
> well?)  I kept meaning to submit something for that, but I've been busy.
> Perhaps when I get back.
> 

Right now they are all Normal. I don't see any problems with having both
frequencies and instance limits. They regulate Cards differently. Anyway,
the specific Otzma Card rules can always resrict the specific types they
define even further, by specifying instance limits per player, type A
cannot co-exist  within the ownership of a player who also owns type B.
The Rule Suite does not exclude any of thsoe limitations.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rule 257

> I don't think non-voting players were ever prohibited from going on
> vacation except perhaps in some RFC versions of the non-voting
> players proposal, and I don't think this was true even then.

Probably not. I suppose I got that idea from the wording of Rule 254,
and the fact that the non-voting players never go on vacation. Until
now, that is.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

> Okay, I'm done all the harfing I can do for now, which is to say up
> until last night's digests.  And my putting myself on Vacation,
> which I do just after I appoint Malenkai Acting President in my
> absence.  My expected date of return is October 2nd, but I might
> manage it a couple of days before then.

Hurry back, and good luck with the new job....

I hereby volunteer for the positions of Acting Registrar and Acting
Web-Harfer. Oh, $#!* ... and Acting Scorekeeper.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Just a show about nuthin'

> oops. you're right. This will have to be a very slow scam. I'm creating 
> just one then.

  In case I figure out what Two-Star's up to, I am creating a null gadget.
____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Just a show about nuthin'

>> oops. you're right. This will have to be a very slow scam. I'm creating 
>> just one then.
> 
>   In case I figure out what Two-Star's up to, I am creating a null
>   gadget.

I don't recall you being awarded an Inventor's Office.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Just a show about nuthin'

> >   In case I figure out what Two-Star's up to, I am creating a null
> >   gadget.
> 
> I don't recall you being awarded an Inventor's Office.

  "Oh."
  RTFR.

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:39:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Offices

> I hereby volunteer for the positions of Acting Registrar and Acting
> Web-Harfer. Oh, $#!* ... and Acting Scorekeeper.

1) I appoint breadbox to these offices.

2) I announce a nomination for the vacant office of Chess-Umpire.
Let me know if you want it.

3) I will announce a justice candidate soon.

4) Anyone want to be an acting:

   AckaPhysicist
   Bond-Harfer
   Financier
   Trinket-Harfer
   Undead-Harfer

Malenkai
Speaker
Acting President

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:20:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 465 Verdict

CFJ 465 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 465
  Subject: Rule Numbers
Initiator: ThinMan
Submitted: 97-09-17 18:12
    Judge: two-star (selected Sep 17, 1997, 21:32)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The action of changing Rule 1's number is forbidden by Rule 1.

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.

I begin with the selfsame rule 303 that seems to have caused the
confusion.  Here are the first two sentences of section (I), the
second being the one causing all the fuss:
 
        Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred to
        simply as the rule's number.  Rule numbers and proposal numbers
        are unownable entities.

Rule 303 indicates that each rule "has" a number, but it then goes on
to say that rule numbers are unownable entities.  So what does it mean
for a rule to "have" a number?  The following definitions, taken from
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary seemed to be the ones
that would most likely be applicable:

1. to hold in the hand or in control; own; possess.
2. to possess, hold, or contain as a part, characteristic, attribute,
   or associated feature.

The judge should, of course, consider any other possible definitions
of "have" that he considers possibly applicable, but none of the (many)
others seemed to me to be anywhere near as reasonable.

Suppose definition (1) is the correct one.  Although "unownable" is
used in many places in the rules, it is never defined.  The customary
definition comes from the English definition, "cannot be owned."
The second sentence of rule 303, which says that rule numbers are
unownable, would thus override the first sentence, and therefore rules
wouldn't actually have numbers after all.  I think I am safe in
asserting that any interpretation of the current rules that indicates
that rules do not have numbers is incorrect.

That leaves definition (2).  Is it also inconsistent with the second
sentence of rule 303?  I don't see why it should be.  I see no reason
why an entity cannot be an attribute or feature of another entity.
Definition (2) is, in my opinion, the interpretation of rule 303 that
has been customary since the beginning of the game when the current
rule 303 was rule 107 (immutable).  The entityhood of rule numbers
seems pointless to me, but I see no reason for it to have changed
the fact that rule numbers are attributes of rules.

The judge will also find examples in the proposal and S.R. archives
which demonstrate that, at least at the times of those proposals and
S.R.'s, changing a rule's number was accomplished by amending or
otherwise changing the rules.

If we accept, then, that a rule's number as an attribute or feature
of the rule, it follows that changing that number does indeed
constitute changing that rule in some way.  Changing rule 1's number
is therefore forbidden by rule 1.

two-star's reasoning:

The initiators reasoning hinges on the interpretation of the the 
sentence "Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred 
to simply as the rule's number." in rule 303, particularly the meaning 
of the word "has" in this sentence. While I agree that there is no basis 
for considering a rule to own its number, it seems that the initiator is 
playing a bit of linguistic slight of hand in simplifying definition (2) 
to "contain as an attribute." It could just as easily be 
interpreted as "hold as an associated feature." For example, a kaa of 
land may be said to "have" a building with there being no implication of 
ownership or containing. Rule 303 is silent as to which interpretation 
is correct, so we must look to game custom for an answer.

Certainly it is possible for an entity to contain another entity. Rule 
500 defines rules and the ruleset as entities, and that the ruleset 
contains rules is implicit from the definition of "ruleset." 
Another example is the case of towers, which "a player adds to a
building they own." However, in this case there is neither a clear 
implicit nor explicit definition of a rule number as part of a rule, so 
I am judging this cfj FALSE. I think that the general game custom on 
containership is stonger then the fact that we may interpret proposals 
that say "Amend rule y by changing its number to z," as they are 
intended. I agree that keeping rulenumbers as entities makes little 
sense, but here we are.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:35:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA Decision

>
>But not a real green mural, that's cruel.
>
>**two-star
>
>(see p1546, folks.)

I was going to say that!! Oh well, does anyone know where the bryant street
theatre is?

er, Phil

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #316
*******************************