Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #389
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Tuesday, December 2 1997       Volume 02 : Number 389

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:59:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato

> 
> /dev/joe has found the Magic Potato.
> 

To cut off any further thread splits before they get out of control,
in a harfy way, I am exercising my privilege as Beldin's tailor to change
the word "win" in the Beldin's Pants rule to the word "head".
Enjoy your extra shriveled heads! :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:18:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 478 (Niccolo)

I accept th assignnment.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 478 has been assigned to Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 478
> Subject: Grapefruit
> Initiator: Slakko
> Submitted: 97-12-01 2:39
>   Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 97-12-01 21:51)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> If Malenkai and Alfvaen have jointly won a cycle, then neither of them
> received a Right-Handed Grapefruit as a result of winning that cycle.
> 
> Slakko's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 666 (c) states:
> 
> 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. 
> 
> As Alfvaen and Malenkai are both winners, neither of them qualifies as The
> winner (as to be The winner implies that a player is a winner and no other
> player is a winner).  Therefore, the events described in Rule 666(c) were
> not applied, and hence the statement should be judged TRUE.
> 
> Alternatively, in the event that Malenkai and Alfvaen have not jointly won
> a cycle, then the premise which begins my statement is FALSE.  As the
> statement is of the form (statement 1) implies (statement 2), if statement
> 1 is FALSE then by the rules of logic the statement as a whole is TRUE (a
> falsehood can truthfully imply anything).  Therefore this statement should
> be judged TRUE in the event that Malenkai and Alfvaen have not won a cycle
> jointly.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:49:55 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato

I preferred the 'gains' to 'looses' suggestion........

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> >
> > /dev/joe has found the Magic Potato.
> >
>
> To cut off any further thread splits before they get out of control,
> in a harfy way, I am exercising my privilege as Beldin's tailor to change
> the word "win" in the Beldin's Pants rule to the word "head".
> Enjoy your extra shriveled heads! :-)
>
> /dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:53:11 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: End of Cycle

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> k) The cycle was not won by points, so this section is ignored.
What about the previous cycle, even assuming the round ended?  I didn't
think there had been a point win lately, so this would sent the MN down to
the smallest prime larger than 342, i.e. 347.

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick about the previous round.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 08:54:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Feeling Generous

I am giving the Parka to /dev/joe.  I wouldn't want
to receive all the freebees myself :-)

Malenkai
Warning.  
This is not a test.
Warning.  
The Parka Virus has escaped containment.
You have been warned.
This is not a test.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:00:53 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Rule 340 Auction 2

Malenkai wrote:

> Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 23 is being auctioned
> in a public auction.
> 
I bid A$ 1 for Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 23.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:11:13 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2405

Niccolo Flychuck 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.  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.
> 
I like Malenkai's idea, which I believe he has brought up before, as
well.  As for Niccolo's comment, I would like to point out that we
already quantify many game actions on a single scale, A$.  I would
agree that various players assign diferent values to various pursuits,
but I don't think that that necessarilly presents a problem.  If the
mana cost of a certain action were greater than I was willing to pay,
then I either would attempt to lower the cost or I would not perform
the action.

To be sure, it would be worthwhile to seek multiple opinions on setting
up the initial scale, but that is not, to me, a reason to not work on
the suggestion.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:19:40 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 477 (Balsamic Dragon)

I accept judgeship.

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.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:23:02 -0600
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public action

I hereby change my status from non-voting to voting.  Who are votes being
sent to these days?

Crackfoo

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:36:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public action

> I hereby change my status from non-voting to voting.  Who are votes
> being sent to these days?

I am the Promoter and Tabulator these days. Send your votes and
proposals to <[email-masked]>.

I will, of course, accept votes and proposals sent directly to me
(i.e., at <[email-masked]>), but the nomicbot address is
preferred - my acka mailbox is already big enough.

Actually, I've been looking for an excuse to send this out again - so
here's my brief overview of the nomicbot, for everybody who didn't
receive it last time.

breadbox
________________

A Quick Rundown On Doing Business With Your Faithful Promoter/Tabulator

   First of all, you'll note that in all the instructions listed
   below, the email address for everything is [email-masked],
   rather than [email-masked]. This address actually maps to
   a special directory which I go through by hand on a regular
   basis. (And soon I'll have a nomicbot program doing all of that.)
   This really helps me keep my burgeoning ackanomic mailbox that
   much more organized.

*  Sending a proposal to the Promoter:

   Send email to [email-masked] that looks something like
   the following:

#submit proposal This is the Title of My Brilliant Proposal
Create a Rule numbered 9999, titled "This is the Title of My Brilliant
Rule", which reads as follows:

The technique used in Proposal 1727 shall henceforth be known as
"breadbox's scam", and all references to such a technique shall use
this term preferentially. Calling it anything else is a Crime.

{{[The reason for this proposal is that I'm jealous of Malenkai!!!!
How come he gets a loophole named after him and I don't?!!! Hey, I won
a Silver Moon for that scam!!!! (Even though it didn't work!!!!) I
WANT MORE!!!!]}}
#end proposal

   In short, everything on the same line as the "#submit proposal"
   becomes the title, and everything after that becomes the proposal
   itself.

   The "#end proposal" is only needed if there's other stuff in your
   email after the body of the proposal. (Email signatures will be
   automatically ignored, but only if they have the required
   dash-dash-space separator line.)

*  Sending your votes to the Tabulator:

   Send email to [email-masked] that looks something like
   this:

#vote 3310 y
#vote 3311 n
#vote 3313 p

   Or like this:

#vote 3310 YES
#vote 3311 no
#vote 3313 pReSeNt

   Or like this:

#vote 3310 y N - p

   Whatever you prefer.

*  Checking your voting status:

   Send email to (that's right) [email-masked] that says:

#current

   I'll tell you what proposals are currently up for voting and how
   you've voted on them so far.

*  Other voting actions:

   To bribe Tammany, use a command that looks like this:

#tammany 3312 n 75

   (This example offers Tammany A$75 to vote NO on Proposal 3312.)

   To use a Bonus Vote:

#bonusvote 3312 y

   (Pretty much like a normal vote with the word "bonus" added.)

   While I'm still doing stuff by hand, I'll overlook any syntax
   errors, as long as it's unambiguous. (Though I may send you a reply
   letting you know, so you don't keep making the same mistakes.)

   If you can't remember how a command goes, and for some reason you
   can't look it up, then just write it in plain, unambiguous English
   and send it to [email-masked]. I'll understand.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:06:32 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public action

As long as we're talking about how to vote, I have a question I have been
meaning to ask.  If you are doing a string of votes but there are
proposals in the middle of that string that were retracted, what do you 
do?  For example, if I did a string of votes right now that read #vote
2429 y n n, how would you interpret it?  2430 was never a proposal, 2431
and 2432 were retracted.  So would you interpret the string I just gave as
a vote on 2429 and then votes on two non-proposals, or would it be a vote
on 2429, 2433 and 2434?

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:30:59 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Return, etc.

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I return from vacation.  Sorry I'm a day late, but my wife bought a house
yesterday.  I guess I should have let her get that couch she wanted.

I approve Slakko's application to the Church of Odo on the Wormhole.

Neat Parka thing!

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 14:38:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 474 Verdict

CFJ 474 has been judged FALSE.

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: FALSE

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.

Balsamic Dragon's Reasoning:

I will first address the question of whether the "win" referred to in the
Beldin's Pants Rule could refer to any other kind of win described in the
rules (of a game or contest, for example).  The word "win" can be a noun or
a verb.  In the Beldin Rule, it is obviously being used as a noun ("gains 1
win").  I have done a thorough search of the rules, as well as all rule
suites, for the word "win".  The only times which the word "win" appears
and is used as a noun are the following:

Rule 605/8 
Winning is Inherently Amusing

"...win the current Cycle of the Game, if the Proposal which created the
rule was non-Modest. This win, if it occurs, shall occur immediately after
the score changes as a result of the Proposal being accepted are
applied...."

Rule 620/12 
Chartreuse Goose 

" ... If this judgement is not overruled, then the player who called for
judgement is declared the winner of the cycle; the win occurring at the
time it becomes illegal to appeal the CFJ under the current rules...."

Since both of these statements refer to winning the cycle, not a subgame,
that is the context in which the Beldin's Pants Rule should be read.

The second question concerns the trinket known as a "win."  Looking at the
trinkets rule:

Rule 506/8 
Trinkets 

"...Other rules may also create and bestow ownership of Trinkets, so long
as the rule provides for naming, describing, and valuing the Trinket...."  

The Beldin's Pants Rule could not have bestowed the trinket called "win," 
since it did not describe or value such trinket.

Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Beldin's Pants Rule
did, in fact, bestow a cycle win upon Malenkai and Alfvaen.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 14:40:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 477 Verdict

CFJ 477 has been judged FALSE.

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: FALSE

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.

Balsamic Dragon's Reasoning

There is a definate difference between the customary interpretation of a
rule and the effect which that rule has on the game state.  Renumbering the
rule does not change the interpretation of the rule, since the rule number
is not a part of the rule, and the text of the rule is unchanged.  Nor has
the changing of the rule number modified that way in which that text is to
be interpreted.  However, simply because a rule says that it has a certain
effect, does not necessarily mean that it has that effect.  Otherwise rule
conflict would shut the game down.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 14:50:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaoler

The election for Gaoler is over.  ThinMan is elected.

ThinMan - 5
K 2 - 3
Vynd - 1

Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:08:08 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: You Know What I'm Going to Say, Don't You?

I hereby Appeal CFJ 474.

Slakko's Appellant Argument:

Balsamic Dragon's Argument stated that the only other instances where the
word win appeared as a noun were in rules where it indicated that a cycle
was won.  However, e neglected to state that, in all such cases, the word
"win" appears in a sentence following the phrase "winner of the cycle".
Therefore, in all such other examples, there is a clear referent that the
"win" refers to a win of a cycle.  In the Beldin's Pants example there is
no such referent, and hence it is inappropriate to ascribe the same
meaning to "win" in Beldin's Pants as it has in Rules 605 and 620.

To quote from a public comment made by Vynd (paraphrased as appropriate):

While "win" seems unlikely to be
refering to a sub-game because it is not in the context of a sub-game
rule, it is equally unlikely to be refering to a Cycle because it is not
in the context of a Cycle winning rule.  (Balsamic Dragon)'s arguement
that the word win, in the ruleset (as a noun), is (...) interpreted as
meaning a cycle win is belied by the fact that every time a cycle win is
discussed in the rules, it is clearly labeled as such.  Even looking at
(Balsamic Dragon)'s own examples of the use of the word win make this
clear.

As Vynd has said, looking at the examples Balsamic Dragon provided us with
shows that the term "win", when used almost immediately after "winner of
the Cycle" indicates that a player has, indeed, won a cycle.  However,
this does nothing to determine the meaning of "win" in the instance of
Beldin's Pants.

Balsamic Dragon's argument also makes a clear distinction between the noun
"win" and the verb use of "win".  I do not believe that the structure of
the Ackanomic rules necessarily makes this distinction an appropriate one
to make.  Further, I believe that to limit the examination of the rules to
instances of the word "win" is excessively restrictive.

It is widely accepted that a "winner" is someone who wins (verb use of
win), and, equally, someone who has achieved a "win" (noun use).
Therefore, "winner" brings with it an implied definition of both the verb
and noun form of win, depending upon the context in which it is located.
Looking for instances of the word "winner", we find a number of instances,
as indicated in part of Alfvaen's reasoning on CFJ 475.

At this point I would like to include some of my own reasoning in my
appeal to Alfvaen's FALSE decision of CFJ 475, to justify why Alfvaen's
argument (which I have referred to) should not prevail on this CFJ either:

The instance of "Winners" in Rule 420 occurs within a note.  Therefore, in
the language of Ackanomic, it has no semantic meaning.  Therefore it
cannot be interpreted to mean "Winners of Past Cycles", as it cannot be
interpreted to mean anything.

For an illustration, inclusion of a note [Winners are people who in real
life have won an Olympic Gold Medal] would not have any effect on the
definition of the term Winners elsewhere in the rules, because it is in a
note and hence has "no semantic meaning".

Alfvaen's reasoning also claims that the instance of "Winners" in Rule
420.1 "only has the force of game custom".  In repsonse to this, let me
quote from Rule 101:

Game custom, spirit of the game, and linguistic interpretation are
external concepts and are not regulated or part of the game state. 

To avoid tautological statement interpretations, we must find that
linguistic interpretation is not part of game custom.  Therefore, whatever
interpretation is given "Winners" in a situation where it has no semantic
meaning cannot be considered part of game custom.

Therefore, Alfvaen's claim that the only instance of a word whose root is
"win" implies that "win" means "win a Cycle" is erroneous.  Consequently, 
there is no other instance of "win" without a clear referent in the rules,
besides the instance in Beldin's Pants.  Therefore, as there are a number
of things to win in Ackanomic, which one this rule refers to is ambiguous,
and hence the statement should be judged TRUE.

I therefore submit that CFJ 474 should be judged TRUE on appeal.

Yours,
Slakko the annoyed-that-he-nade-two-CFJs
- --
Duncan "Oh, yeah, annoyed" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:33:47 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 474 Verdict

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> Rule 506/8 
> Trinkets 
> 
> "...Other rules may also create and bestow ownership of Trinkets, so
> long
> as the rule provides for naming, describing, and valuing the
> Trinket...."  
> 
> The Beldin's Pants Rule could not have bestowed the trinket called
> "win," 
> since it did not describe or value such trinket.
> 
The Beldin's Pants rule most certainly could have done so.  One rule
does not need to be granted authority by another to work except
sometimes where there are potential conflicts involved.  Language such
as that quoted above from R 506 is one of my pet peeves for that
reason.

This does not necessarilly mean that Balsamic Dragon's Verdict is
wrong, however.  The Court is currently considering another CFJ that
involves the same question, and I am not certain whether this decision
makes ours easier or harder.

NOTE: Submitting multiple CFJs addressing the same issue is generally
not effective.  The verdict on the first CFJ to be decided frequently
indicates the correct verdicts for the other CFJs in the group, and the
appeals process can become a real mess.  Speaking for myself, I
appreciate CFJ submitters making their best efforts to write CFJs whose
statements can be judged independantly of each other.  Perhaps I will
address this situation with one or more proposals.

ThinMan
Justice

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:35:02 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 474

This argument has already been posted (I can't remember by who...
sorry), but I thought I might re-post it for the judges consideration.

I believe that one of the uses of the word 'win' left out by Balsamic
Dragon is in Rule 101, that "a player may not win the Game of
Ackanomic".  This is one of the few (if not the only) use of the word
win not in the context of a sub-game or a Cycle Win, and would seem to
be the most applicable use.  If this is the case, Malenkai and Alfvaen
would have both gained wins in the Game of Ackanomic, which would not
happen by the precedence rules.

- --
Aaron Keesler
Adtran, Inc.
- --

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:35:10 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Gaoler

> The election for Gaoler is over.  ThinMan is elected.
> 
WooHoo!

ThinMan
Gaoler

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:45:35 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 474 Verdict

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> NOTE: Submitting multiple CFJs addressing the same issue is generally
> not effective.  The verdict on the first CFJ to be decided frequently
> indicates the correct verdicts for the other CFJs in the group, and the
> appeals process can become a real mess.  Speaking for myself, I
> appreciate CFJ submitters making their best efforts to write CFJs whose
> statements can be judged independantly of each other.  Perhaps I will
> address this situation with one or more proposals.

My apologies.  I submitted the first CFJ before I realised that it might
not be sufficient to stop Malenkai from winning to prevent the cycle
ending - that we could still have Alfvaen as a winner even though e and
Malenkai had exactly the same "right" to win from the rules.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:46:51 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: You Know What I'm Going to Say, Don't You?

I think what I was trying to introduce by making such a division between
the noun and the verb form of the word win, is that it certainly appears
that a "win" when used as a noun is some form of entity which can be
possessed, whereas a verb indicates more of a state of being.  In fact, if
it weren't for the fact that you can't win the game in a manner unspecified
by the rules, Slakko would be the winner of a very short cycle sometime
between 11:59 on Thursday and 12:00 noon, as he had a "win."  I agree that
the interpretation of the Beldin's win is not 100% clear cut, but few
things in Nomic are.  To be honest, I didn't expect to find any occurances
of the word win as a noun, and based on this I would have found the
statement to be true.  In any case, I fully expected it to be appealed, but
I still don't think that the lack of specific context issue is strong
enough overturn my ruling.  A stronger argument might be that a win, as
used in the two examples I found, is an event and not an entity.  Hmm, is a
tornado an entity?  How about a cycle?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:09:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Parka

I am giving The Parka to Vulcan.

/dev/joe
Soon to be a member of the only party with a head?
Maybe we can give it pointy ears too. :-)

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:17:20 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: "win"

With the lack of a clear referant(?), might the "win" the Beldin's rule is
bestowing be an entirely new entity, created by implication (and simply
giving us one more thing to track)? 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:21:38 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Parka

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I am giving The Parka to Vulcan.
> 
> /dev/joe
> Soon to be a member of the only party with a head?
> Maybe we can give it pointy ears too. :-)

You fool! Why didn't you organise the scam so that Vulcan could be the
only party with a win!

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:53:03 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Parka

> On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > I am giving The Parka to Vulcan.
> 
> You fool! Why didn't you organise the scam so that Vulcan could be the
> only party with a win!

I was under the mistaken assumption that a rule with high precedence said
something like "Only players may win cycles of Ackanomic."  However, I
cannot find this in the rules now; the closest I can find is in R250:
"no person who is not a player may make a proposal, [...] or win a cycle."

/dev/joe
fool
ready for more fun CFJ's this Thursday, though less game-shakingly important

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:57:06 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: "win"

mr cwm wrote:

> With the lack of a clear referant(?), might the "win" the Beldin's
> rule is
> bestowing be an entirely new entity, created by implication (and
> simply
> giving us one more thing to track)? 
> 
That possibility has been raised in the Supreme Court deliberations.
The Court is not currently leaning in favor of that interpretation, but
who knows what we will eventually decide.

ThinMan
Justice

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Oren Bassik <[email-masked]>
Subject: ACKA UNSUBSCRIBE

I'd like tu unsubscribe... is this how I do it? 

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:01:21 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Parka

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > > I am giving The Parka to Vulcan.
> > 
> > You fool! Why didn't you organise the scam so that Vulcan could be the
> > only party with a win!
> 
> I was under the mistaken assumption that a rule with high precedence said
> something like "Only players may win cycles of Ackanomic."  However, I
> cannot find this in the rules now; the closest I can find is in R250:
> "no person who is not a player may make a proposal, [...] or win a cycle."

So Vulcan could win the cycle, because it isn't a person?

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:18:11 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 474 Verdict

Slakko wrote:

> My apologies.  I submitted the first CFJ before I realised that it
> might
> not be sufficient to stop Malenkai from winning to prevent the cycle
> ending - that we could still have Alfvaen as a winner even though e
> and
> Malenkai had exactly the same "right" to win from the rules.
> 
No apologies are necessary (except maybe from Malenkai, who got us
into this mess in the first place :)  The treatment of CFJs in general
Nomic, and particularly in Ackanomic, can be a little tricky to get a
hang of.  My comments were not intended as a rebuke, but rather as
hopefully helpful information for newer players.  Particularly
difficult to grasp (especially as it is game custom) is the principle
that judge's and/or the SC's reasoning is customarilly accepted as
implicit game custom in many cases, based on the concept that there
is, in fact, a _reason_ why the CFJ statement is true or false.  This
sort of game custom is much more nebulous than the explicit game custom
established by the CFJ statement itself.  It is that sort of custom
that would prevent Alfvaen from winning if the CFJ prevented Malenkai
from winning.

I should also point out that it is legal to retract a CFJs before
Judgement is returned on it, although I do not presume to tell anyone
when or whether they should avail themselves of that ability.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:37:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public action

> As long as we're talking about how to vote, I have a question I have been
> meaning to ask.  If you are doing a string of votes but there are
> proposals in the middle of that string that were retracted, what do you 
> do?  For example, if I did a string of votes right now that read #vote
> 2429 y n n, how would you interpret it?  2430 was never a proposal, 2431
> and 2432 were retracted.  So would you interpret the string I just gave as
> a vote on 2429 and then votes on two non-proposals, or would it be a vote
> on 2429, 2433 and 2434?

The consecutive votes increase by one, regardless. So your example
would be an attempt to cast votes on 2429, 2430, and 2431.

If you did this, I might send you back a warning that you tried to
vote on proposals that aren't available for voting.

The "proper" way to do that, if you didn't want to start a new line,
would be to use: "#vote 2429 y - - - n n".

Good question.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:52:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA UNSUBSCRIBE

> I'd like tu unsubscribe... is this how I do it? 

No. Well, sort of.

A little reminder, folks: [email-masked] is what you use to
send mailing list commands, for any mailing list on muppetlabs. The
command in this case is "unsubscribe ackanomic".

Of course, your Registrar and Postmaster are such softies, that we'll
send the commands for you if you ask nicely.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 18:39:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Parka

> I am giving The Parka to Vulcan.

I approve this action, assumimg I need too.
If not, oh well, I'll never get the gist of those
overly byzantine org rules :-)

> Soon to be a member of the only party with a head?
> Maybe we can give it pointy ears too. :-)

Mabye it can wear a Silly Adjenda Hat :-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:08:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Parka

>> I am giving The Parka to Vulcan.
> 
> I approve this action, assumimg I need too.
> If not, oh well, I'll never get the gist of those
> overly byzantine org rules :-)
> 
>> Soon to be a member of the only party with a head?
>> Maybe we can give it pointy ears too. :-)
> 
> Mabye it can wear a Silly Adjenda Hat :-)

*blink* *blink*

I get up from the desk in my office at the Courthouse, lean out the
window, and shout in the direction of Vulcan HQ:

      "DAMN YOUR LOGIC!"

And I shake my fist in the air, for good measure.

breadbox
4 out of 5 Justices agree: Malenkai's Loophole is a leading cause of
Malenkai's Migraine

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:39:22 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: "win"

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> With the lack of a clear referant(?), might the "win" the Beldin's rule is
> bestowing be an entirely new entity, created by implication (and simply
> giving us one more thing to track)? 
> 
> -mr cwm
> 
> 

This is the view that I favor.  I have yet to find any references to a
plain old "win" in the rules.  There are wins for sub-games, cycle wins,
and even winning the entire game, but no win.  So it seems to me that the
wins that Malenkai and Alfvaen received are something entirely new to
Ackanomic.  

I do agree that when an ambiguous word appear in the rules,
one good way to try and find out what it means is to examine other rules
for that word.  The Chartruse Goose is not defined in each and every rule
where its name appears, but we can tell what it is because there is a rule
that clearly explains what that phrase means.  However, it would appear
that the word win *is* defined in ever rule in which it appears.

I don't mean defined in the sense of explaining the basic meaning of the
word, but defined in the sense of what it is that is being won.  Much of
the time it appears as part of a phrase like "wins the cycle," or "the
player with the most toys wins the game of life" or something along those
lines.  In these cases it is quite clear what is being won.  When it
appears outside of phrases such as these, one can rest assured that
somewhere earlier in the rule there is such a defining phrase.  

The rules don't unambiguously tell us what the word win means in Acka.
They provide several different definitions, depending on what rule you
look at.  If win was never ever used except to describe winning a cycle,
then I would have to agree that even when it is not clearly stated to be a
win of a cycle, that would be the meaning of the word.  But since it could
just as easily mean a win of the game of Acka, or of various sub-games, we
cannot simply choose one of several possibilities and say that THIS is the
meaning of the word.  We can, under these circumstances, look at a
dictionary, but all it tells us is that the word win, when used as a noun,
is synonymous with victory.  So the only conclusion that seems justified
is that the win in the Beldin's rule is just that, a win.  Nothing more,
nothing less.  Malenkai and Alfvaen now each have one of these wins, but
having them doesn't cause anything in particular to happen.

Thats my take, anyway.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:54:04 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Innocent(With An Explanation)

I hereby apologize for the web pages not having been updated for the
last day or so.

However, considering that this has a fair bit to do with being informed
on Monday morning that I didn't have a job anymore, I'm sure you can all
understand.  (Yesterday I just somehow wasn't in the moon, and today was
a combination of that and the fact that I was busy dropping off resumes.)

Anyway, hopefully I'll be able to get to it tonight or tomorrow morning
or something.  I don't think there's anything I have to urgently reply
to, so I won't bother right now.

- --
- --Alfvaen (Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Song In My Head--Pop Will Eat Itself:Wise Up Sucker
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Day++, Dollar--

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

Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:07:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Innocent(With An Explanation)

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> I hereby apologize for the web pages not having been updated for the
> last day or so.
> 
> However, considering that this has a fair bit to do with being informed
> on Monday morning that I didn't have a job anymore, I'm sure you can all
> understand.  (Yesterday I just somehow wasn't in the moon, and today was
> a combination of that and the fact that I was busy dropping off resumes.)
> 

Good luck, and may harf be with you!

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 22:37:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rule 240 auctions

ThinMan has won all three items up for auction in that
rule 240 auction, and rule 240 will repeal itself
sometime by the end of this message.  Its interesting
that a trinket could be auctioned for less than its
intrinsic value when the 'whatever it is we are auctioning
today' once fetched 15 times its IV, and one of these trinkets
once fetched A$275 in auction.  It is also interesting
that Acka voted this rule in, and no one other than ThinMan
actually wanted the entities.

High (and only) bids by ThinMan:

RoJ fragment 22: A$20
RoJ fragment 23: A$1
JMCL: A$5

Chief Cheese

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #389
*******************************