Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #385
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, November 29 1997      Volume 02 : Number 385

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:00:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 146 (CnH)

>This has been assigned to CnH.

I decline.

CnH

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:00:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ambassador

The following have volunteered for the office of
Ambassador.  Reply to vote; the election lasts 3 days:

Balsamic Dragon
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:07:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe

Malenkai has found Phoebe.  (And I didn't think she liked
me)

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:15:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 474 (Balsamic Dragon)

CFJ 474 has been assigned to Balsamic Dragon

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 474
  Subject: Winning
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-27 12:37
    Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected 97-11-29 00:15)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Malenkai did not win a Cycle of Ackanomic at noon Acka time on Thursday
November 27, 1997 AD.

Slakko's Reasoning:

At 12:00m, 27/11/1997 AD, the Beldin's Pants rule read, in its entirety:
Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially Somewhere Else. Beldin's Pants may
only be removed as described by the Praetor. Beldin's Pants are unique. 
Each recipient of The Parka gains 1 win every Thursday at noon. 

To win a Cycle of Ackanomic is to achieve a winning condition.  At no
stage does Beldin's Pants refer to the win being of a Cycle of Ackanomic.
It could equally refer to a game of Grab-a-Donkey, as in neither case is
there contextual information necessary to settle it one way or the other.
Similarly, it could refer to winning any kind of game as described
elsewhere in the Ackanomic rules, be it PartyChess or a game in the Games
and Contests Suite.

Alternatively, the trinket known as "win" was created before noon on
Thursday 27th November 1997 (at 11:59:28 or thereabouts).  It is equally
difficult to distinguish whether or not the rule is supposed to refer to
this trinket as it is to refer to winning any kind of winnable thing as
explained in the previous paragraph.

Therefore it cannot be determined unambiguously that Beldin's Pants was
referring to winning a Cycle of Ackanomic, and hence Malenkai did not win
a Cycle of Ackanomic at 12:00m, 27/11/1997 AD.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:17:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 475 (Alfvaen)

CFJ 475 has been assigned to Alfvaen

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 475
  Subject: Ending the Cycle
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-27 12:47
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected 97-11-29 00:17)
Judgement: 

Statement:

The 16th cycle of Ackanomic did not end at noon, Acka time, on Thursday
26th November, 1997 AD.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Beldin's Pants states that recipients of The Parka gain a win.
Gaining a win is not attaining a winning condition.  Attaining a winning
condition is a state which occurs immediately prior to a player gaining a
win.  Therefore, even if the word "win" in Beldin's Pants was interpreted
as meaning "win a Cycle of Ackanomic", no winning condition would have
been attained, and hence conditions described in Rule 666 as being
contingent on a winning condition being attained would not have occurred.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:21:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 476 (/dev/joe)

CFJ 476 has been assigned to /dev/joe

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 476
  Subject: Grapefruit Juice
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-11-28 00:13
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected 97-11-29 00:21)
Judgement: 

Statement:

The legality of Alfvaen creating Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot
be determined with finality.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

This is a Paradox Win CFJ.

Alfvaen and Malenkai simultaneously, by the Beldin's Pants rule, achieved
a winning condition.  This is not prohibited by the Rules in any way(Rule
603 takes pains to avoid it, and the other rules specify a single player,
but it is codified nowhere).

However, Rule 666 declares that "_The_ winner" (emphasis mine) is given,
among other things, a Right-Handed Grapefruit.  Rule 668, "Eggs And Fruit",
declares The Right-Handed Grapefruit to be a unique entity.  Rule 500.3,
"Entity Uniqueness", states that "If there are several unique entities of
the same type, the oldest one survives and the rest are destroyed."

If Alfvaen and Malenkai both win simultaneously, and are both awarded
the Right-Handed Grapefruit simultaneously, then there is no way to
determine which RHG is the oldest of them.  So "the oldest one" is a
meaningless term in this case.  The Rules do not provide sufficient
information to determine whether both RHG's are destroyed, neither, or one
of them, or, in the latter case, _which_ one.

So whether Alfvaen possesses a Right-Handed Grapefruit or not can not be
determined with finality, hence neither can eir capacity to create
Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:25:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 146 (Malenkai)

Malenkai has been assigned.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 146
  Subject: Vacation
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-22 14:20
    Judge: mr cwm (declined)
2nd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (declined)
3rd Judge: Malenkai (selected 97-11-29 00:24)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Karma has committed a Crime.

Slakko's Reasoning:

In a public message dated after 11pm Acka Time on Thursday 20th November,
Karma was put on vacation under Rule 257.  In a public message dated
before midday Acka Time on Saturday 20th November, Karma attempted to
remove emself from Vacation.  This e cannot do under Rule 255.  Hence e
attempted an impermissible action, and thus committed a Crime.  Also, this
implies that Karma is still on vacation.

Suggested Penalty:

TRANSFERENCE of $20 to Slakko (to cover court cost).
A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line precisely.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:29:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

I declare proposal 2409, "Wearing a Silly Agenda Hat"
and proposal 2417, "The Pick, The Sickle And The Shovel"
harfy

Malenkai
the pickings have been slim lately :)

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:40:00 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Win

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, K2 wrote:

> Seems to me that, as previously noted by Slako, that the term 'win' in
> Beldin's Pants could refer to a win at just about anything, making the change
> ambiguous and hence impermissable according to R 939. Perhaps a CFCJ is also
> in order?

Unfortunately, we would have to impeach the rules.  We don't normally
impose criminal sanctions as the result of a "thread split".  Nice
thinking though.
- --
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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:06:03 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Really, Really, Sorry

I hereby retract proposal 2418.

It still contained Malenkai's Loophole.

There will be a final fix out today (Promoter willing).

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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 08:35:31 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Oh Dear.

Retract Proposal 2425.
It's an almost Null Proposal.

- --
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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:36:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh Dear.

> Retract Proposal 2425.
> It's an almost Null Proposal.

Darn - I was hoping to get my prediction out before he noticed.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:13:56 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2422 - retracting due to typo

I'm unambigously retracting this proposal because I found a rather serious
typo in it. Meanwhile - RFC!

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2422
> Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?
> Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
> 
> Create a new rule called "Do you think I am easier to be played on than a
> pipe?", which contains the following text, deimited by PPPP:
> 
> PPPP
> 1.A Pipeis an Organizational Power. An Organization may buy a Pipe for
> A$400. An Organization which owns a Pipe is reffered to in this rule
> as a Piper.
> 
> 2. A Piper may do the following:
>  a. Import entities from other nomics.
>  b. Export entities to other nomics
>  c. Add Entity Behavior Rules to the Entity Behavior Rule Suite
> 
> 3. Importing Entities from other nomics.
> a. A  Piper may only import an entity if it meets the following
>    criteria:
>  i. The nomic it is being imported from is a member of Internomic
>  ii. The entity has a valid Entity behavior profile.
> b. Import procedure:
> i. The Piper is notified by an entity of another nomic which is 
>    responsible for exporting entities from that nomic.
> ii. If the entity does not meet the import criteria the Pipper must
>    reject the transfer by notifying the exporting entity of that nomic
> iii. The Piper may ammend a short prefix to the name of an imported
>     entity to avoid breaking the rules of Ackanomic.
> iv. The Piper always has the option of rejecting an entity, even
>   if it appears to meet the Import criteria.
> v. If the Piper decides to accept the imported the entity it publically
>   anounces this fact, and publishes the Entity Behavior Rule. If within
>   three days no Rejection Hearing
>   is called, then the entity is transffered to its intended recipient.
>   If a Rejection Hearing is called, then the acceptance is delayed
>   pending the results of the Hearing.  When an entity is imported and it
> either  has no intended recipient, or it cannot be transferred
>   legally to its intended recipient. It becomes unowned.
> 
> vi. Once an Import is accpted. The Piper adds its Entity Behavior Rule
>     to the Entity Behavior Rule Suite. All importedEntities are
>     Tradable and Ownable.
> 
> 4. Exporting Entities to other nomics
> a. A Piper may only Export entities if the following criteria are met:
>   i. The nomic the entity is being to is a member of Internomic.
>  ii. The entity is tradeable.
> iii. The entity is either owned by the Organization, or the owner
>      of the entity has made a public anouncement asking the Piper
>      to Export the entity.
> iv. The Entity has a valid Entity Behavior Profile.
> v. The entity is tradeable.
> 
> b.Export Procedures. 
> i.Export procedures are initiated when an entity posts a message
>  to the public forum which that it wishes to Export an entity. 
>  The message should specify the entity to be exported, the nomic
>  it is to be exportedto, and if the poster is not a Piper itself,    
>  it must specify also the name of the Piper e requesting to perform
>  the Export. The must also include n Entity Behavior Profile.
>  The message may also include the name of a recipient.
> 
> ii.If aPiper has been named, and the Piper agrees to attempt the Export,
>  ( a Piper may set a price for such a service),
>   then the Piper notifies the receiving nomic, via the entity
>   responsible for Imports in that nomic of the intent to transfer.
>  If the receiving nomic accepts the transfer, then the Piper
>   makes a public anouncement to that effect and the entity is
>   transferred  to that nomic. IF the receiving nomic either rejects
>   the transfer, or fails to reply within 7 days. Thenthe Piper makes
>   a Public anouncement to that effect, and no action is taken.
> 
> c. When an entity is transferred out of Ackanomic, then it is no longer
>  tracked by any Ackanomic officer. If the Entity is a unique entity,
>  then the  following sentence is appended to the rule governing that 
>  Entity:"There are currently 0 instances of this Entity in Ackanomic."
>  if that entity has a corrsponding rule in the Enitity Behavior Rule
>  Suite, then that rule is repealed.
> 
> 
>  
> 5. RejectionHearing
> Whenever a Piper anounces that it has decided to accept a transfer, any
> player who feels that the transfer may be rejcted may call for Rejection
> Hearing, provided that such a Hearing has not already been called on that
> same transfer. The valid responses in a Rejection Hearing are "Can we keep
> it, PLEASE? We'll walk it every day." and "Eject that Reject." If the
> decision is "Can we keep it, PLEASE? We'll walk it every day." then the
> entity transfer is accepted. Otherwise, the entity transfer is rejected.
> 
> 6. Whenever an Entity has been imported, and its nomic of origin is
> Ackanomic, and it is a previously exported unique entity, and there exists
> a rule in the ackanomic ruleset that governs the behavior of this entity,
> and that rule contains the sentence : "There are currently 0 instances of
> this Entity in Ackanomic." that sentence is stricken from the rule.
> 
> 7. Whenever any entity has been imported, and its nomic of origin is
> Ackanomic, and there exists a rule which governs its behavior in the
> ackanomci ruleset, then its entity behavior rule is not added to the
> Entity Behavior Rule Suite.
> 
> 8. Whenever a Piper Imports an entity, and the imported is accepted, it
> may require the recipient, (in case there is no recipient, the itmay
> require the Treasury instead), to pay a Customs Fee. If any player feels
> the Customs Fee is too high, e may call for a Customs Fee Hearing. When
> such a hearing is called, payment of the Customs Fee is delayed until the
> results of the Hreading aremade publically knowable. The appropriate
> responses for this Hearing are "This is Highway Robbery", "The Piper
> deserve this for their hard work". If most of the responses are "This is
> highway Robbery", then the Customs Fee is set to 0. If most of the
> responses "The Piper deserve this for their hard work" then
> the Customs Fee is transfferd from the recipient, (or the Treasury, if
> there is no recipient) to the Piper.
> 
> 9. Whenever a transfer of more than entity is requested
> 
> {{Renumber this rule to 1017}}
> 
> PPPP
> 
> 
> Create a new rule entitle "Entity Behavior Rule Suite" which contains the
> text delimited by EBRS:
> 
> EBRS
> This rule is the Head of the Entity Behavior Rule Suite.
> An Entity Profile must specify for each entity the following properties in
> order to be valid:
> 1. An Entity Behvior Rule
> 2. A nomic of origin
> 
> The rules which are members of this rule suite are entity behavior rules
> of entities which have been imported into Ackanomic. This rule takes
> precedence over all other members of this Rule Suite. 
> The rules in this Rule Suite defer to all other rules.
> [Entity Behavior Rules]
> 
> EBRS
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:19:46 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Frobnotzer

> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > > I am building a Pyriac Frobnotzer.  It will be done in 3 days.

> > This is complete.  An public auction now begins to
> > last for 3 days.

> I bid A$30 for this fine example of a Pyraic Frobnotzer.

I'll bid A$34 for it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
We must believe in free will.  We have no choice.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:39:05 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Harf

> I declare proposal 2409, "Wearing a Silly Agenda Hat"
> and proposal 2417, "The Pick, The Sickle And The Shovel"
> harfy

At last!  I thought I'd never get a proposal declared harfy...
Though, I admit, I was trying with Proposal 2398 as well.  :-)

> Malenkai
> the pickings have been slim lately :)

Yeah, a bit...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
"I think she might have dropped it out here somewhere!"

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:45:43 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Really, Really, Sorry

> I hereby retract proposal 2418.

> It still contained Malenkai's Loophole.

> There will be a final fix out today (Promoter willing).

You know, remembering two-star SuperCollider proposal, I think that
the Grandiose Proposal bonus is just enough to offset all the retraction
penalties one gets for earlier, buggy versions.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Todd Rudgren:Todd
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Every baron has his own special fantasy.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:55:23 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: NoWin: Denotational

> Seems to me that, as previously noted by Slako, that the term 'win' in
> Beldin's Pants could refer to a win at just about anything, making the change
> ambiguous and hence impermissable according to R 939. Perhaps a CFCJ is also
> in order?

Oh, a CFCJ for attempting to scam a win is only called for if the consensus
is that they're going to get away with it...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Lorraine Segato:Phoenix
Current Book--TesseractsQ
How quickly daft jumping zebras vex.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:10:31 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 475 (Alfvaen)

> CFJ 475 has been assigned to Alfvaen

I accept this CFJ, and I hope to judge it impartially.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Lorraine Segato:Phoenix
Current Book--TesseractsQ
I went into a general store, and they wouldn't sell me anything specific.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:38:47 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Frobnotzer

> > On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > > > I am building a Pyriac Frobnotzer.  It will be done in 3 days.
> 
> > > This is complete.  An public auction now begins to
> > > last for 3 days.
> 
> > I bid A$30 for this fine example of a Pyraic Frobnotzer.
> 
> I'll bid A$34 for it.

I bid A$42 for it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:43:24 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Frobnotzer

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > > On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> > > > This is complete.  An public auction now begins to
> > > > last for 3 days.
> > > I bid A$30 for this fine example of a Pyraic Frobnotzer.
> > I'll bid A$34 for it.
> I bid A$42 for it.
I bid A$50 for it.

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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:43:52 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Damn Slakko

Retract 2426.

- --
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: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:06:22 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 146 Verdict

CFCJ 146 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 146
  Subject: Vacation
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-22 14:20
    Judge: mr cwm (declined)
2nd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (declined)
3rd Judge: Malenkai (selected 97-11-29 00:24)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Karma has committed a Crime.

Slakko's Reasoning:

In a public message dated after 11pm Acka Time on Thursday 20th November,
Karma was put on vacation under Rule 257.  In a public message dated
before midday Acka Time on Saturday 20th November, Karma attempted to
remove emself from Vacation.  This e cannot do under Rule 255.  Hence e
attempted an impermissible action, and thus committed a Crime.  Also, this
implies that Karma is still on vacation.

Suggested Penalty:

TRANSFERENCE of $20 to Slakko (to cover court cost).
A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line precisely.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Rule 713, in part:

> To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime. An 
> action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is,by contrast, 
> impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action is a Crime 

Rule 255, in part:

> The one exception is that a player who has been on vacation less than 2 
> days may not take themselves off vacation. 

Karma was placed on vacation by rule 257 on 11/20, at 23:36.

Karma wrote, on 11/22, at 11:22:

> if thr [sic] rules say i must, then i remove myself from vacation 
> as of...... now!

If this message, is in fact, an attempt to remove himself from vacation,
then Karma did indeed commit a crime.  We must look at whether this is
an attempt to remove himself from vacation.

The rules do not say anyone "must" take themselves on vacation; indeed
they prohibit such in the situation in question.  However, inflection
is impossible in this medium, and I believe (and thus judge) the "if"
clause to be more rhetorical than conditional in the attempted public
action quoted above, thus I believe Karma *attempted* the public action
of vacation removal.

(Normally I would see it the other way, but CFJ 447 and CFJ 470 have
[unfortunately] established a bit of custom.  Moreover, no one 
questioned at the time that it was an unambiguous attempt to remove
himself from vacation.  This is much to the chagrin of the officers,
who have to deal with this ambiguous **** all the time :-))

Rule 373 speaks to this situation somewhat [quoted in part]:
 
> The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are
> public actions. Any active player may attempt any public action
> available to him or her simply by sending a public message specifying 
> the action to be taken. However, if any information that is necessary 
> to specify the action fully and unambiguously is left out of that
> message, then the attempt fails.

I'm not sure if the judges of CFJ 447 and 470 considered this, (but the
Supreme Court certainly should in the case of CFJ 471 :-)).  It would
appear that this rule may countermand the custom mentioned above, and
apparently be used in other situations of this nature.  Even if it does,
however, rule 373 never says the attempt "never happens"; it says the
attempt "fails" (and thus by implication the *attempt* still *occurs*).
Rule 713 only requires the attempt *occur*, and since rule 373 
will never prevent the attempt from occurring, no matter how it is
interpreted, I can leave that to another CFJ, since the result is the
same in this case.  (In other words, had 3 days passed, would rule 373
have caused the attempt to fail? -- our game custom seems to say no, but
rule 373 seems to say yes, unless the custom is giving a rather liberal
rendering of "ambiguous").  I realise this is a bit tangential as it turns
out, but I felt it had to be addressed in case rule 373 caused the attempt
to never occur.

Thus I find that Karma attempted an impermissable action, and that whether
rule 373 applies or not, the attempt still occurred, thus he comitted a
Crime.

Having found the verdict, what is a suitable penalty?  I find that this 
attempt by Karma was an honest mistake, and personally find calling
CFCJs over honest mistakes a bit questionable, especially when there
was no damage done.  While I believe the rules of nomic should be 
followed to the T,  who hasn't made an honest mistake, and to have
to deal with being dinged for A$20 every time something like this 
happens seems a bit petty to me.  The proper thing to do, in this
case, is to point out the error, correct the game state, and move on.

CFCJs should be used for 3 things, IMO: harf, strategy, and remedial
action against cheaters.  I'm not sure they are appropriate for
honest mistakes.  Indeed, the initiator did not ask for much in terms
of penalization, but clogging the justice system with this and having
the defendant enshrined in the CFCJ archives is enough penalty; any
further token penalization would be petty.

Actual Penalty:

A DEDUCTION of 0 points from Karma's score.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:10:20 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 476 Verdict

CFJ 476 has beem judged FALSE.  Contrary to the iniator's comments,
I do not believe this was a PWCFJ, and thus not goose bait (although
I cannot get to muppetlabs now, for some reason, to check of the PWCFJ
win rule has been changed...)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 476
  Subject: Grapefruit Juice
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-11-28 00:13
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected 97-11-29 00:21)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The legality of Alfvaen creating Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot
be determined with finality.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

This is a Paradox Win CFJ.

Alfvaen and Malenkai simultaneously, by the Beldin's Pants rule, achieved
a winning condition.  This is not prohibited by the Rules in any way(Rule
603 takes pains to avoid it, and the other rules specify a single player,
but it is codified nowhere).

However, Rule 666 declares that "_The_ winner" (emphasis mine) is given,
among other things, a Right-Handed Grapefruit.  Rule 668, "Eggs And Fruit",
declares The Right-Handed Grapefruit to be a unique entity.  Rule 500.3,
"Entity Uniqueness", states that "If there are several unique entities of
the same type, the oldest one survives and the rest are destroyed."

If Alfvaen and Malenkai both win simultaneously, and are both awarded
the Right-Handed Grapefruit simultaneously, then there is no way to
determine which RHG is the oldest of them.  So "the oldest one" is a
meaningless term in this case.  The Rules do not provide sufficient
information to determine whether both RHG's are destroyed, neither, or one
of them, or, in the latter case, _which_ one.

So whether Alfvaen possesses a Right-Handed Grapefruit or not can not be
determined with finality, hence neither can eir capacity to create
Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Alfvaen argues that if he and Malenkai are awarded RHG's simultaneously:

  The Rules do not provide sufficient information to determine whether
  both RHG's are destroyed, neither, or one of them, or, in the latter
  case, _which_ one.

However, the rules do in fact have a clause to cover such a situation.
It's in rule 405, "Speaker", in the clause describing the Officer in
charge of random things:

  When the rules require one of a set of distinct objects to be chosen or
  operated on without specifying how one is to be chosen, the Officer in
  charge of random things shall choose one of the possible choices at random,
  with equal probabilities for all possible choices.

If indeed Malenkai and Alfvaen have been awarded RHG's simultaneously, then
Malenkai should choose one of them at random to survive, and as described
in Rule 500.3, the rest are destroyed (just one other in this case).

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:43:38 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 476 Verdict

> CFJ 476 has beem judged FALSE.  Contrary to the iniator's comments,
> I do not believe this was a PWCFJ, and thus not goose bait (although
> I cannot get to muppetlabs now, for some reason, to check of the PWCFJ
> win rule has been changed...)

Well, I agree with /dev/joe's reasoning(forgot about the Speaker thing,
darn it), but I'm not sure I agree that I don't get the Goose.  Why don't
you think it qualifies?  (Not that I really want to quibble, I'm just
curious...if it _had_ been ruled TRUE, I would definitely have liked to
know why.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Lorraine Segato:Phoenix
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Smilie-captioned for the alternatively clued.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:47:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 475 Verdict

CFJ 475 has been judged FALSE. 

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 475
  Subject: Ending the Cycle
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-27 12:47
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected 97-11-29 00:17)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The 16th cycle of Ackanomic did not end at noon, Acka time, on Thursday
26th November, 1997 AD.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Beldin's Pants states that recipients of The Parka gain a win.
Gaining a win is not attaining a winning condition.  Attaining a winning
condition is a state which occurs immediately prior to a player gaining a
win.  Therefore, even if the word "win" in Beldin's Pants was interpreted
as meaning "win a Cycle of Ackanomic", no winning condition would have
been attained, and hence conditions described in Rule 666 as being
contingent on a winning condition being attained would not have occurred.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Rule 666 states the following:

   Upon a Cycle winning condition being achieved, the following steps
   occur, in order:

   a) Ackanomic play is suspended.

   b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are
   destroyed.

   c) The winner is given the title of winner of the cycle, and a
   Right-Handed Grapefruit and a Champion's Cloak are created in that
   player's possession. If this results in his having two Champion's
   Cloaks, one of them is instantly transformed into a Badge of Glory.

Slakko's reasoning implies that being "given the title of winner of the
cycle" is synonymous with "gaining a win", and the latter phrase is not
synonymous with "achieving a Cycle winning condition".

The problem is that the terminology is far from consistent through the
relevant rules.  Rule 603, "Winning by Points", does say "that player has
achieved a Winning Condition".  However, Rule 601, "Winning By Paradox",
says "that player wins the cycle"; Rule 605, "Winning by Palindrome",
says "[that player] shall...win the current Cycle of the Game"; Rule
620, "the Chartreuse Goose", says "A player who possesses the Chartreuse
Goose may not win the Cycle", but also mentioned "winning conditions".
Rule 666.n) says "If...the single winner of the last cycle would
immediately win again...."  Rule 667, "The Fat Lady", says "if a player
wins a Cycle" and "a winner being declared".

Outside the 600's:

Rule 101 states:

   A voting player may only win a Cycle by achieving a winning condition
   that is defined by the Rules. Non-voting players may not win Cycles
   of Ackanomic. A player may not win the Game of Ackanomic.

Rule 250 says "no person who is not a player may...win a cycle."  Rule 410,
"Scorekeeper",
mentions "a player winning a cycle by points".  In Rule 597, "Frankenstein
Monster", it says "that player shall also win the current cycle".  Rule
850, "Museum", says "That player is then declared the winner of the Cycle.
No player may win a Cycle more than once in this manner."

Rule 1320, "This is the way the world ends", states:

   The End of the World causes the cycle to immediately end. The winner
   of the cycle will be the active or vacationing player who had donated
   the most A$ to The Round Earth Restoration Society at the time that
   the Earth was made round. If this selection method results in a tie,
   or the player who would win is for some reason ineligible to win the
   cycle, then the player who most recently became Enlightened out of
   those players who are tied will be the winner of the cycle. If none of
   the players who are tied for most A$ donated to The Round Earth
   Society are Enlightened, then the Speaker will randomly select with
   equal probability one of the players who are tied to be the winner. In
   any of these cases, the winner will receive the title of Prophet of
   Doom.

So, to proceed: it is traditional at this point to dive for the nearest
dictionary(ies), and so I shall.  Since there is really no official
dictionary for word meanings outside of the game of Fictionary(where "win"
would be a very bad ing word), I will use my personal favourite dictionary,
Random House 2nd Edition, which should be close enough for these purposes.
(And does not include "prophesy" as a noun...)

The only relevant noun definition for "win" therein(there is another one
which applies to horse racing only)is: "a victory, as in a game or horse
race."  Not very helpful, so let's turn to "gain":

1. to get(something desired), esp. as a result of one's efforts
2. to acquire as an increase or addition
3. to obtain as a profit
4. to win; get in competition
7. to reach, esp. by effort; get to; arrive at

and a few others which did not seem relevant.

Let me digress for a moment to consider previous interpretations of
Beldin's Pants.  For instance, previously it said "gains 1 trinket".
It said nothing about this trinket being transferred from another player,
but that is how it was interpreted.  This interpretation has not been
disputed, and implies to me that while the Beldin's Pant rule itself
may not describe its full effects(due to its forced brevity), it is
possible to consider these effects as occurring in _whatever way it is
possible_, under the Rules, for these effects to occur.

Thus, if it is necessary for a player to "gain 1 win" as a result, and
_the only way_ under the Rules for that to occur is for that player to
achieve a Cycle winning condition, then by implication that condition is
achieved, and the opening clause of Rule 666 is satisfied.

If such were not the case, too, then, for instance, Rule 601 would not
allow the cycle to end, because it does not describe a "Cycle winning
condition", but merely says that a player wins the Cycle.  So the criterion
for Rule 666 must not be interpreted narrowly.

For a full judgement to be returned, the issue of CFJ 474 must be settled
as well.  (I encourage the judge of CFJ 474 to return a verdict of INVALID,
due to the extreme similarity between these two CFJ's; it seems to me that
the condition of CFJ 474 is subsumed under this one.  If not, then this
verdict should be taken into account.)

The question here is whether or not a "win" must necessarily mean "winning
a Cycle of Ackanomic".

In the Contests & Games rule suite, as well as the Grab-A-Donkey rule,
"wins" are referred to, but always in reference to the specific game.
There is no question of ambiguity in Rule 1250.7, "Game of Pure Skill",
when it says "Upon a winning condition being met and a winner being
declared", or "The winner receives a standard Trophy."  If there was,
then any Cycle winner would receive a standard Trophy; such is not, in
fact, the case.  So the customary interpretation of "winning" will only
apply to a subgame if a subgame is referred to specifically, or the
reference to "winning" appears in the subgame's own rule.

The only other reference to "winning" I can find in a different context
is "winner(s)" of an election in Rule 402, which also has a specific
referent.

Finally, there is a reference in Rule 420.1, "Historian"--in square
brackets, so it has no force but that of game custom--to "Winners".
I do not believe that anyone can doubt this to refer to winners of
Cycles of Ackanomic.  So "a win", with no other referent, refers to a
cycle win.

So I must rule FALSE; Malenkai and Alfvaen, the recipients of the Parka,
each gained a cycle win at noon on Thursday, November 27th, and perforce
must have achieved a Cycle winning condition in doing so.

{{[ End of judgement ]}}

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:50:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 476 Verdict

> Well, I agree with /dev/joe's reasoning(forgot about the Speaker thing,
> darn it), but I'm not sure I agree that I don't get the Goose.  Why don't
> you think it qualifies?  (Not that I really want to quibble, I'm just
> curious...if it _had_ been ruled TRUE, I would definitely have liked to
> know why.)

That "cannot be determined with finality" business, at least used to be,
no good for a PWCFJ.  You have to say "[action X] appears equally legal
and illegal".

In the old days, the "cannot be determined with finality" was the syntax
for a PWCFJ, but it was changed.  Like I said, I could not get to muppetlabs
to check the current rules and the past CFJs on whether a CFJ was a PWCFJ,
but check the CFJ archive grepping for paradox and the like.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 20:32:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 475 Verdict

At this stage I'm still mulling over an appeal.  I really only have one
leg left to stand on, and so I'm going to give people a chance to kick
this leg out from under me and save us all a trip to the Supreme Court.

> Alfvaen's Reasoning:
> 
<start snipped>
> 
> The question here is whether or not a "win" must necessarily mean "winning
> a Cycle of Ackanomic".
> 
> In the Contests & Games rule suite, as well as the Grab-A-Donkey rule,
> "wins" are referred to, but always in reference to the specific game.
> There is no question of ambiguity in Rule 1250.7, "Game of Pure Skill",
> when it says "Upon a winning condition being met and a winner being
> declared", or "The winner receives a standard Trophy."  If there was,
> then any Cycle winner would receive a standard Trophy; such is not, in
> fact, the case.  So the customary interpretation of "winning" will only
> apply to a subgame if a subgame is referred to specifically, or the
> reference to "winning" appears in the subgame's own rule.
> 
> The only other reference to "winning" I can find in a different context
> is "winner(s)" of an election in Rule 402, which also has a specific
> referent.
> 
> Finally, there is a reference in Rule 420.1, "Historian"--in square
> brackets, so it has no force but that of game custom--to "Winners".
> I do not believe that anyone can doubt this to refer to winners of
> Cycles of Ackanomic.  So "a win", with no other referent, refers to a
> cycle win.

Apparently the Historian doubts this by implication.  I see no Historian's
page which refers to the Past Winners of Cycles, nor admittedly to any
other type of Winners.  The only page which lists Past Winners of Cycles
is maintained by someone who is not the Historian, and hence it does not
fulfil the requirements of Rule 420.1.  If there is no Historian's Page
listing Past Winners of Cycles, then clearly game custom would have to
indicate that "Winners", as mentioned in the note to this rule, if it even
has any meaning (being in a note), cannot refer to past Winners of Cycles.

Also note that this word Winners in Alfvaen's context has no semantic
meaning by the rules.  Therefore, by the rules, it cannot refer to
anything.  Therefore, regardless of what game custom says the Historian's
page must contain, there is no word with any semantic meaning in Acka
which forces it to contain "Winners".  This leaves us with only one
instance of the word "win" or any of its derivatives with no clear
referent.  Namely, the one we are discussing.

Anyone believe I have a case here, with either argument?

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."

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #385
*******************************