Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #317
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Friday, September 26 1997      Volume 02 : Number 317

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

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:12:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : non-voting

I am changing my status to nonvoting (if it is currently voting), and I
hereby resign as Senator (if I am still Senator).

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:19:33 -0400
From: Daniel Abraham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Offices

At 06:39 PM 9/25/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> 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
>
>

As the son of a physicist-turned-rabbi, and a physicist-turned-English
student myself, I volunteer for the position of AckaPhysicist.

Onieros

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: bye-bye

> Darth Vader and Atilla the Pun have been on ice over sixty days, and
> are thus removed from the game.

Darth Vader was pending, and is thus removed as if e never joined.

An undead is created for Atilla the Pun. (Atilla can keep Guy Fawkes'
undead company while they languish in Purgatory waiting for an
Undead-Harfer.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:45:49 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mail

. But the harf lives, (if the harfmeister would stop 
> hogging it,) peeping out of the snow like a daffodil in February, always 
> there, even when we have forgotten.
> 
> **two-star

I'll harf when I bloody well feel like it thank you!

Balsamic Dragon

Not hogging, just waiting for the right one.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:48:21 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: In Hong Kong, a Paradox Win CFJ

>   It has come to my attention that, over the summer, a minor court case
in
> Hong Kong, involving a stolen watch, escalated into a trial over whether
there
> was any law in Hong Kong at all.  (It was, fortunately, decided there
was).
> Thought this might be of interest.
> 
There is no law in New Hong Kong!

For all you Phil Foglio fans out there,

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mail

> . But the harf lives, (if the harfmeister would stop 
> > hogging it,) peeping out of the snow like a daffodil in February, always 
> > there, even when we have forgotten.
> > 
> > **two-star
> 
> I'll harf when I bloody well feel like it thank you!
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 
> Not hogging, just waiting for the right one.

Hmph! Proposals 2290 and 2309 weren't good enough for you, eh? Well,
I'm not going to call a Hearing when there's only ONE proposal
currently in the queue, but do consider yourself heckled.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: In Hong Kong, a Paradox Win CFJ (Acka:)

This reminded me of the discussion we started but never finished on
the matter of Subject Line Tyranny....

Let me ask this outright: Does anyone here have the ability to sort
their mail on the "Acka:" in the subject line but NOT on the "acka" in
the From: line?

Consider this a straw poll.

I know there's a wide range of email programs out there (with a wide
and sometimes psychotic range of capabilities), so I wouldn't be
surprised if some of them couldn't sort on a substring in the
from-address. But if that's not a problem, I'd like to consider
dropping rule-based requirements w/r/t the subject line entirely.

FWIW, Subject Line Tyranny began way back in the first few months of
the game, before there was even a mailing list. (When people joined or
left the game, everyone had to update their own personal addressbook
entry.) Subject lines were thus necessary to make the mail sortable at
all. But maybe by now the software's caught up enough that we don't
need them anymore?

breadbox
Postmaster

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:26:34 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 465 Verdict

I hereby appeal CFJ 465 to the Supreme Court.

> 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.
> 
Two-star has given some attention to my argument, and rejected the
proposition that rule numbers are parts of their rules, I am not
clear on exactly what interpretation he advances in its place,
however.  He implies that he may be considering rule numbers to be
"an associated feature" of a rule, though he does not outright say
that that is the case.  He has not, however, indicated why his
apparently preferred definition indicates a verdict of False.  

I do not necessarilly agree with two-star's assessment of my preferred
interpretation of rule 303, and I also think that it is at least
unclear that his preferred interpretation indicates a verdict of False.
In particular, there is precendent in Ackanomic for renumbering of
rules constituting changing the rules.  For instance, P1412 changed
what was then R491 (which governed allowable rule changes) so that
renumbering rules was a "rule change" specifically allowed of
proposals. This was brought into play in proposal 1444, which, among
other things changed rule 786's number to 595 _as a rule change_.  This
aspect of changing rule numbers as a valid rule change has been
employed many times since, as well.  Although renumbering rules is no
longer formally specified in the rules to be a rule change, no
alternative interpretation has been specified or even suggested until,
perhaps, P2304, the reason for this CFJ.

Indeed, the interpretation that changing rule numbers in fact
constitutes changing the rules is still a current one.  Among Vulcan's
actions when it had dictatorial power were at least two instances of
"changing the rules" by renumbering a rule.  These actions have been
harfed as if they were sensical, and no one has objected to them on
grounds of such not constituting rule changes.  They have, in general,
been accepted as having been successful (which distinguishes them from
Guy Fawkes' attempt to assume dictatorial power).

Two-star even appears to agree.  He said in his reasoning that "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 do not think that game custom
on containership is very strong at all, but the fact that we can and do
interpret proposals as two-star described indicates that we consider
renumbering a rule to constitute changing that rule.  I can only
assume that in his fervor to counter my specific argument, two-star
overlooked this strong alternative indication that the CFJ should be
judged True.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:50:05 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Offices

> 4) Anyone want to be an acting:
> 
>    AckaPhysicist
>    Bond-Harfer
>    Financier
>    Trinket-Harfer
>    Undead-Harfer
> 
> Malenkai
> Speaker
> Acting President

I volunteer to be the acting Acka-Physicist.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:57:20 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : non-voting

> 
> I am changing my status to nonvoting (if it is currently voting), and I
> hereby resign as Senator (if I am still Senator).
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 
If this means that there is a Senator position open, I'd like to apply for
it.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:06:59 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: In Hong Kong, a Paradox Win CFJ (Acka:)

> 
> Let me ask this outright: Does anyone here have the ability to sort
> their mail on the "Acka:" in the subject line but NOT on the "acka" in
> the From: line?
> 
> Consider this a straw poll.
> 
I can sort either way.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : non-voting

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Balsamic Dragon wrote:

>If this means that there is a Senator position open, I'd like to apply for
>it.

I, also.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:10:17 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Resignation

I hereby resign from my Senator office.  It has been fun, and had its
perks, but the experience pales.  At least two candidates have
announced their desires to run for seat Rebus-8, perhaps one of them
(or someone else) would prefer to run for seat Melvin.

ThinMan
Former Senator (seat Melvin)

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:21:21 -0400
From: Daniel Abraham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resignation

Wow!  Everybody shift powers to the left!

I nominate the tornado for the Melvin seat.

At 01:10 PM 9/26/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I hereby resign from my Senator office.  It has been fun, and had its
>perks, but the experience pales.  At least two candidates have
>announced their desires to run for seat Rebus-8, perhaps one of them
>(or someone else) would prefer to run for seat Melvin.
>
>
>ThinMan
>Former Senator (seat Melvin)
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:27:01 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resignation

> >
> >I hereby resign from my Senator office.  It has been fun, and had its
> >perks, but the experience pales.  At least two candidates have
> >announced their desires to run for seat Rebus-8, perhaps one of them
> >(or someone else) would prefer to run for seat Melvin.

Hmm, why don't I switch running for seat Melvin then and leave mr. cwm
unopposed.  I hereby denounce my opponent the tornado on account of its all
spinny and throws around cows.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:09:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: In Hong Kong, a Paradox Win CFJ

> But if that's not a problem, I'd like to consider
> dropping rule-based requirements w/r/t the subject line entirely.

FWIW, I personally would like to keep it, because I sort my
mail visually, not with the software, and the 'Acka' in the
subject line makes it easy to scan the 'in' folder.  If I'm
the only one that likes the status quo, though, ignore me.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:10:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Offices

> >    Bond-Harfer
> >    Financier
> >    Trinket-Harfer
> >    Undead-Harfer
> >

I appoint ThinMan to these offices in an acting capacity.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:37:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate

E-mail me if you want to run for the office of Senate.  The
nomination period lasts 3 days.  No volunteering that occurred
before this post counts, so Balsamic Dragon and mr cwm will have
to volunteer again.

Also, you need not specify which seat you want, if two seats are
vacant and there are two volunteers, then both are filled.  If there
are 3 volunteers, then a 3 way election happens.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:00:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate

> E-mail me if you want to run for the office of Senate.  
 [...]
> Also, you need not specify which seat you want, if two seats are
> vacant and there are two volunteers, then both are filled.  If there
> are 3 volunteers, then a 3 way election happens.

How do we decide which winner gets which seat in such an election?
Remember, they have names.  I don't think there is a specific way
defined, so my random rule will probably take effect.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: In Hong Kong, a Paradox Win CFJ

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > But if that's not a problem, I'd like to consider
> > dropping rule-based requirements w/r/t the subject line entirely.
> 
> FWIW, I personally would like to keep it, because I sort my
> mail visually, not with the software, and the 'Acka' in the
> subject line makes it easy to scan the 'in' folder.  If I'm
> the only one that likes the status quo, though, ignore me.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

I too, being somewhat technology impaired, prefer to use my eyes for
sorting my mail.  Frankly, sorting my mail through any other method would
be silly, I get ten times as much for Acka as I do from the rest of the
universe together.  If anything, I should get everyone else to include
something like "Friend:" or "School:" at the begining of the the subject
lines of their messages so I can sort them out of my regular,
acka-related, mail.

                                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #317
*******************************