Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #383
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, November 27 1997      Volume 02 : Number 383

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:31:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> Iwould love to see one or the other go.  But not likely, I'm afraid.
> I want a single currency called mana, earned via game actions, and used
> to effect changes in the game state.  
Votes? Vote fractions?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:38:48 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Iwould love to see one or the other go.  But not likely, I'm afraid.
> > I want a single currency called mana, earned via game actions, and used
> > to effect changes in the game state.  
> Votes? Vote fractions?
I've been lurking on the Agora list.  I have one thing to say:

DO NOT GO THERE.

"Plato possesses at least 0.9VTs".  This statement has caused a huge
amount of controversy in Agora.

And this is not some player we're talking about, this is the long-dead
Greek philosopher.  Just think what fractional votes can do, if Agora
can't even decide whether or not some dead Greek philosopher owns them,
let alone has the opportunity to use them.

- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:03:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2405

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Iwould love to see one or the other go.  But not likely, I'm afraid.
> I want a single currency called mana, earned via game actions, and used
> to effect changes in the game state.  Saying I use X mana to change the

The problem with such a concept is that you would have to quantify all the
different game action and aspects  on a single scale.   It is generally a
consensis that different things are not worth the same to all players. The
game goes through phases, and at each phase other aspects may be more
valuable. 
I think this would take a bit more discussion.

Niccolo Flychuck

> game state to include "Malenkai wins" is just a use of that mana.  Players
> who do not care about winning can use their mana to effect changes in the
> game state they care about.  That's my thoughts on scorekeeping tokens/
> currency, anyway.
> 
> > My idea's basic tenet was "let's enable winningconditions to be changed
> > more easily".  I guess the implied second tenet was "keep winning by
> > points as a separate event from other types of wins, as this seems to be
> > Ackanomic custom and not necessarily a Bad Thing."
> 
> I agree with the structure in principle, but I think some of the 
> implementation is a bit iffy.  I cannot assure you that I will vote
> for it, but I am but one vote.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of acka-research-digest V2 #183
> ***********************************
> 

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:13:50 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> This appears to be one of those classic Acka events, the discussion which
> will never get anywhere.  Now there is one solution - the Elmer-Season
> proposal (I forget which title I gave it).  It's there, in black and
> white, in an attempt to eliminate the possibility for quarrelling over
> this situation.  
> 
> Can I get both of your support on this?

First, you have my support on on Elmer-Season.
Second, the proposal eliminates the current ambiguity in the language of
the rule. It in now way eliminates the discussion, since the discussion is
about the state of the rule as it stands now, or more precisely, about
some very basic concept in Ackanomic.

I might as well just go ahead and continue with a short reply to ThinMan.
While most of Ackanomic's rules conform more closely with your view than
with mine, they do not exclude my view. My interpretation is a valid one,
and in this specific case, your CFJ was judged false, which means that
there is no barrier currently for the Pumpkin Patch to join MetaMorph.
And once Elmer-Season passes, even you will agree.

You may argue that my view is a fringe view that will forever remain at
the acka boonies. Well, they said once 'We don't need no Organizations.'
or words to that effect.

As for the rest, we'll just have to continue to disagree. Surak celebrated
the differences between different beings, as do I.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> - --
> Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
> "Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
> "We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:15:57 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Slakko - you are challenged to a Duel

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Citizen Slakko, I speaker for the honorable Alfvaen who bid me act as a
> > Second in a Duel. Know then, O Slakko, that on this day, ex ex vee aye aye
> > - of the month see aye, of the year em see em el exsee vee aye aye aye -
> > the honorable Alfvaen, President of Ackanomic, Founder of the Rebelion,
> > Seeker of the Orange Menace, calls upon you to settle a matter of honor
> > for having ripped the Gumball out of his mouth, and for profaning the name 
> > of the Spice Girls.  
> 
> It appears that our year has one hundred and one months.
> Most of all, I fear innumeracy.
> 

I hate it when that happens, especialy when I finally get the year right:)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:28:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bronze Torch

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> I am invoking my privilege as a Bronze Torch holder to append the
> following reasoning to CFJ 473:

Likewise.

> 
> - --
> The issue boils down to this:
> 
> (1) Rule 101 forbids that the Game State be changed except as
>   described in the rules.
> 
> (2) The membership of an Organization is an aspect of the Game State,
>   thus Pumpkin Patch Nomic becoming a member of Metamorph would
>   constitute a change to the Game State.
> 
> (3) If Rule 1015 describes that change sufficiently that rule 101 is
>   satisfied, then this CFJ should probably be ruled false; otherwise
>   it must be ruled true.
> 
> It is my firm belief that rule 1015 does not describe any change
> whatsoever to the game state.  Others disagree, so the Court must
> decide.

It is my firm belief that R1015 describes the necessary change
sufficiently. I would like to state that belief is just as firm as
ThinMan's:)
I'd be more than happy to forward to the Court copies of our recent
discussion on this very subject.

 > 
> I advise the Court that in my opinion, interpreting rule 101 so as to
> allow PPN to join Metamorph will greatly weaken the relevant provision
> and open the door to a variety of scams of the type once justified
> under the auspices of former rule 115.

This is what I would call 'the Ostrich Objection', basically it says ' we
can't possibly judge this way, because the consequences would be
devestating. In my opinion, this turns the judgement into a political
issue, judgement should in no based on potential consequences, as
undesirable as they might be.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> - --
> 
> I am now exercising my option as a Justice to decline to judge the
> appeal of CFJ 473.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> Bronze Torch Holder
> Justice
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:54:43 -0000
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: The shape of the earth

The earth is round.
The earth is round.
The earth is round.
The earth is round. Not flat, round.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:31:00 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

>While most of Ackanomic's rules conform more closely with your view
>than with mine, they do not exclude my view. My interpretation is a
>valid one, and in this specific case, your CFJ was judged false, which
>means that there is no barrier currently for the Pumpkin Patch to join
>MetaMorph.  And once Elmer-Season passes, even you will agree.

My CFJ has been appealed, which means that we still don't know whether
there is a barrier to the Patch joining Metamorph.  If Elmer-Season
passes then rule 1015 will be a mess, but I think I probably would
then agree that it would be possible for PPN to join Metamorph.

I don't like the term "a valid interpretation."  It is too subjective.
I believe your interpretation to be incorrect; does that mean it is
invalid?  I wouldn't necessarilly claim that.  On the other hand, how
far do we have to go before we decide that an interpretation is
invalid?  The way I see it there are correct and incorrect
interpretations.  Sometimes it is unclear which category a certain
interpretation falls into, of course, and that is why we have CFJs.

>You may argue that my view is a fringe view that will forever remain
>at the acka boonies.

Indeed I may.

>As for the rest, we'll just have to continue to disagree. Surak
>celebrated the differences between different beings, as do I.

Peace and long life.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:57:36 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Bronze Torch

>>I advise the Court that in my opinion, interpreting rule 101 so as
>>to allow PPN to join Metamorph will greatly weaken the relevant
>>provision and open the door to a variety of scams of the type once
>>justified under the auspices of former rule 115.

>This is what I would call 'the Ostrich Objection', basically it says
>'we can't possibly judge this way, because the consequences would be
>devestating. In my opinion, this turns the judgement into a political
>issue, judgement should in no based on potential consequences, as
>undesirable as they might be.

This is a mischaracterization of my comment.  The Court certainly can
and should judge according to what it believes to be the correct
interpretation; Niccolo's suggestion that I say otherwise is mildly
offensive to me.  I also think Niccolo's comments about politicizing
Court decisions to be a red herring, or at least a naively
idealistic.  In my opinion most judicial decisions are to one degree
or another political.  The interpretations that we believe to be
correct are often chosen according to the way we want the game to
operate or the way we think the game should operate (not necessarilly
the same thing), rather than on purest logic.  I offer the
Metamorph/More Than Human situation as a particularly pertinent
example.  I furthermore assert that Ackanomic is far enough from a
complete formal system that it is often _necessary_ to rely on
something beyond fact and logic to decide upon the correct
interpretations of the rules.

I would also like to point out these two specific aspects of my comment
that Niccolo did not appear to appreciate:

(1) My intent [which, I allow, might be difficult for Niccolo to
    ascertain] was to provide a basis for judgement should other
    considerations leave the court undecided.  The Justices are,
    after all, the Keepers of the Sacred Laws.

(2) As I recall, the rule 101 provision which I pointed out to the
    court is part of the result of merging the old rule 115 into
    rule 101.  There is some degree of game custom involved with
    "rule 115 actions" which therefore may be relevant to the case,
    as my comment suggests.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:25:20 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady

> breadbox asks:
> > What I wanna know is if you planned this to happen on Thanksgiving.
> 
> As far as I can tell, Malenkai was waiting to become Beldin's Tailor
> to pull this one, which is why this week, and the Beldin's Pants rule
> specifies Thursday, so that meant today...

It was not planned at all, until after I became Beldin's Tailor, at which
time I thought through many combinations of amendments and game state
changes and thought this was the harfiest, by my definition of harf.

Malenkai

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #383
*******************************