Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #386
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, November 29 1997      Volume 02 : Number 386

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:13:15 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: One Question

Why are there two Justices?  Wouldn't it be too easy to get a deadlock?
Is this some historical thing which hasn't been changed, or is it just
that no-one's really bothered and the Justices have always agreed so far?

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 17:11:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: One Question

> Why are there two Justices?  Wouldn't it be too easy to get a
> deadlock?  Is this some historical thing which hasn't been changed,
> or is it just that no-one's really bothered and the Justices have
> always agreed so far?

The point of having two Justices is to require them to achieve
consensus before delivering a verdict.

The Supreme Court is the end of the road. If the Supreme Court
disagrees with you, you have no recourse for further appeals. Thus it
is important that the verdict of the Court not be composed of the
opinions of one player.

The Justices very frequently do not agree at first. Often it is in the
process of achieving consensus that the deeper issues of a CFJ come to
light.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:23:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: muppetlabs problems

*sigh*

The problems you have been having with muppetlabs in the last few days
are not on your end.

The local network in which muppetlabs.com resides recently underwent a
topology reorg, and ever since then our box has been crashing
irregularly.

I am very, very sorry for the inconvenience this causes. Rest assured,
these problems will not cause email to be lost (barring an extremely
weird sequence of events), but it does mean that web access can vanish
unpredictably. And if the box crashes at 2AM (PST), it might not come
back until morning.

Now that the holidays are over, we have drones working furiously to
isolate the problem and repair it. I will keep you all informed as to
our status. Hang in there. Many other people are just as dependent on
muppetlabs' stability as we are, so I'm sure that the problem will be
fixed as soon as possible.

breadbox

PS: Oh yeah - I have been assured that the problem has nothing to do
with email volume, so don't worry that Ackanomic activity is somehow
exacerbating things.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:48:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rule 240 Auction 1

Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 22 is being auctioned
in a private auction.

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:49:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rule 340 Auction 2

Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 23 is being auctioned
in a public auction.

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:50:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rule 240 Auction 3

The Jukkasjarvi Mind Control Laser is being auctioned
in a private auction.

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:51:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Frobnotzer

> I bid A$50 for it.

I bid A$ 107 for the Frobnotzer

Malenkai
wondering what to swap 'Suber' with :-)

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:56:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 477 (Balsamic Dragon)

CFJ 477 has been assigned to Balsamic Dragon

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 477
  Subject: Renumbering
Initiator: /dev/joe
Submitted: 97-11-29 17:11
    Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected 97-11-29 21:57)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Proposal 2389 did not succeed in renumbering rule 2000 to rule 0.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Rule 1 states, in part:

  The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the
  customary interpretation of this rule to be changed.

The customary interpretation of rule 1 includes, among other things, the
global precedence over the rest of the rules numbered 2 & above, and
the internally-described immutability.  Renumbering rule 2000 to become
rule 0 would give it precedence over rule 1, which would result in the
last paragraph of rule 1 to cease to have any effect.  Clearly if rule 1
becomes easily amendable, and ceases to have precedence over
higher-numbered rules which claim precedence over it, then the customary
interpretation of rule 1 will have changed.  Thus, the change in the game
state of renumbering rule 2000 to rule 0 is prohibited by rule 1.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #386
*******************************