Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #396
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, December 6 1997      Volume 02 : Number 396

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:27:51 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: New Player (two-star)

Another new player is to be added to our fair game of Ackanomic.
His name is Henry Towsner, his email is [email-masked], and he
has chosen the name "else...if".

two-star has been chosen as else...if's Mentor.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Dr. Demento:The Greatest Novelty Records of All Time, Vol. 1
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Please, no deja vu; I don't want to go through that again

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:34:41 -0800
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Call for Agenda Conditions

This is the official call for Agenda Conditions. Respond privately with
three agenda conditions within seven days to participate. The whole
agenda shebang is mostly covered by rules 607 and 431. (671 too, but you
can worry about that one after you get your hats.)

Remember, Agenda conditions should be staments that can be clearly
judged true or false and that you think would make harfy partial
conditions for winning the cycle. If you don't send any Agenda
Conditions, you'll miss out on Acka's newest, and therefore potentially
most buggy and scammable method for winning the cycle.

After the conditions are collected we'll begin the bidding for eggplants
and pass around the hats. Join the fun!

Probably most conditions (what do I know) are going to require the owner
of the hat for the condition to meet some requirement. You can use "this
hat" in such cases, such as, "The owner of this hat has won duels using
three different games and or contests."

**two-star

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 18:37:25 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Tyranny and Oppression rule.

Amongst the plethora of proposals, amendments and rules, The Conspiracy has
triumphed. My attempt to raise a zombie horde has failed, through no fault
of mine, due to a petty rule (which I believe someone created out of thin
air). How can I be expected to combat such overpowering evil and prejudice
when they have such total control over the rules?
Once more I have been penalised; my score reduced. Is there no end to their
evil? How can such unfairness and inequality be allowed to persist? Will I
forever be victimised? Bereft of points? Brushed aside as insignificant by
the tyrannical ruling elite? Surely good and justice must eventually
triumph?

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:17:03 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 477 Theories

I know that officially my argument means squat, what with not being
a Bronze Torch holder, but nonetheless I thought I'd just weigh in.

The only paragraph of Rule 1 that claims to give it preferences is the
last one:

This rule may not be amended, changed in any way, or repealed, or for any
reason cease to be in force, except as described in this rule. If this
rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide play. No
new rule may be created which, if it conflicted with this one, would guide
play instead of this one. No rule may be amended or otherwise changed so
that, if it conflicted with this one, it would guide play instead of this
one. No new rule may be created, nor any existing rule changed in any way
so as to specify any alternative definition for any of the language of
this rule. The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the
customary interpretation of this rule to be changed. This rule shall still
be interpreted according to game custom, however, and this rule shall not
be interpreted so as to forbid its correct interpretation from being
established via otherwise legal CFJ proceedings. 

Let's check each of these sentences in turn.

1: This rule has not been amended, otherwise changed, or repealed, so no
problems here.  It's text (and even its number) have remained the same.
Furthermore, even though Rule 0 claims to eliminate the force of a single
paragraph, the rule as a whole remains in force.

2: "If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide
play."  Well, it's doubtful whether this means anything now, but it
doesn't stop any other rule from trying anything.

3: "No rule may be amended or otherwise changed so that, if it conflicted
with this one, it would guide play instead of this one."  Well, the number
of Rule 2000 was changed to 0, but, thanks to Proposal 2388, a renumbering
is no longer changing the Rule itself.  This sentence has not been
violated.

4: "No new rule may be created, nor any existing rule changed in any way
so as to specify any alternative definition for any of the language of
this rule."  Rule 0 does not claim to redefine any part of the rule.  It
merely claims that, whatever definition the last paragraph of Rule 1 has,
it is to be completely ignored.

5: "The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the
customary interpretation of this rule to be changed."
Now this is the sentence that it appears the appellant of the CFJ is
hanging eir hopes on.  Conveniently, it is full of weasel words like
"customary interpretation" and "game state", neither of which is clearly
defined elsewhere in the rules, and hence whose definitions would be based
on linguistic interpretation (you'll note I didn't say game custom - see
Rule 101 for why).  If you accept that Rule 101 should not be interpreted
tautologically if an alternative definition is reasonable, then game
custom and linguistic interpretation are distinct entities.  What, then,
is customary interpretation?  It appears to be a non sequitur - game
custom cannot interpret the language by rule 101.  
However, this leads to the question as to whether this "throwaway" use of
customary interpretation overrules Rule 101 and implicit game custom that
interpretation of words is not actually game custom, but linguistic
interpretation.  From this point, this sentence gets complicated enough
that I will leave it in the capable hands of the Justices.

(Note that the meaning of Rule 0 is determined by linguistic
interpretation.  It does not affect the customary interpretation of Rule
1, because customary interpretation is what meaning lies in a rule's
words.  Rule 0 simply leads to the last paragraph of Rule 1 being ignored,
regardless of what customary interpretation it may have.  There is nothing
that requires that a legal change, imposed by another rule, affects a
customary interpretation of the Rule.)

6: "This rule shall still
be interpreted according to game custom, however, and this rule shall not
be interpreted so as to forbid its correct interpretation from being
established via otherwise legal CFJ proceedings."
Interesting.  This claims that game custom is what interprets a rule.
This could either (a) conflict with Rule 101, or (b) lead to this rule
having no meaning at all - because game custom is not linguistic
interpretation for rule 101, and hence by Rule 1 it is not interpreted by
game custom, but then this sentence has no meaning and so it is
interpreted by game custom, yadda yadda..
Therefore, while all other rules are subject to linguistic interpretation,
this rule is interpreted according to game custom.

Just my $.03 (inflation)

- --
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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:44:35 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Some Descriptions 'n' Stuff

A description of my house:

It is a modest 4 bedroomed house, much longer than it is wide, giving the
illusion of an infinitely long passageway with doors on each side, while
in fact only going the length of the house.  There is a flat, squashed 
watertower atop the house, with a remarkably familiar logo saying "SW" on
it.  There is a sign on the watertower saying: 
CAUTION: Manic children inside!  Do not open without running film.
Faint cries of "Boingy! Boingy! Boingy!" can be heard inside the tower, if
you listen closely.

Now for actions:

I hereby apply to build a 20 meter (I want to say metre, but I'll defer
to the rules) high Ostentatious Tower on top of my house.  This will cost
me A$60.  The description of the tower is as follows:

The watertower suddenly springs to a height of 20 metres, and then is
stopped by some invisible force field.  One can't help but get the feeling
that it could extend right to the edge of Acka, given enough time and
money.

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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:13:32 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 477 Theories

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> 
> I know that officially my argument means squat, what with not being
> a Bronze Torch holder, but nonetheless I thought I'd just weigh in.

Feel free, this is (one of) the things that nomic is all about.

> 
> The only paragraph of Rule 1 that claims to give it preferences is the
> last one:
> 

Yeah, I don't think thats in dispute.
> 
> Let's check each of these sentences in turn.
> 
> 1: This rule has not been amended, otherwise changed, or repealed, so no
> problems here.  It's text (and even its number) have remained the same.
> Furthermore, even though Rule 0 claims to eliminate the force of a single
> paragraph, the rule as a whole remains in force.

I concur.

> 
> 2: "If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide
> play."  Well, it's doubtful whether this means anything now, but it
> doesn't stop any other rule from trying anything.
> 

Well, if by trying anything you mean doesn't prevent a rule from being in
conflict with Rule 1, but only making sure that Rule 1 always wins said
conflict, then yes, I agree.

> 3: "No rule may be amended or otherwise changed so that, if it conflicted
> with this one, it would guide play instead of this one."  Well, the number
> of Rule 2000 was changed to 0, but, thanks to Proposal 2388, a renumbering
> is no longer changing the Rule itself.  This sentence has not been
> violated.
> 

I am not entirely sure of this myself.  If I really wanted to, I could
make a rather tenuous arguement that, even though rule numbers are only
"associated" with their rules, changing them changes the rule.  Its a
lousy arguement though, so I won't bother trying.

> 4: "No new rule may be created, nor any existing rule changed in any way
> so as to specify any alternative definition for any of the language of
> this rule."  Rule 0 does not claim to redefine any part of the rule.  It
> merely claims that, whatever definition the last paragraph of Rule 1 has,
> it is to be completely ignored.
> 

OK, now this I take serious issue with.  You are trying to say that by
saying the last paragraph of Rule 1 has no effect, Rule 0/2000 does not
redefine that paragraph.  I do not see how the negation of a paragraph is
not also a redefinition of that paragraph.  Rule 0/2000 is attempting to
redefine the last paragraph as having no effect, no meaning.  I realize,
of course, that you will disagree, and in the end it will come down to how
the Supreme Court interprets "definition."

> 5: "The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the
> customary interpretation of this rule to be changed."
> Now this is the sentence that it appears the appellant of the CFJ is
> hanging eir hopes on.  Conveniently, it is full of weasel words like
> "customary interpretation" and "game state", neither of which is clearly
> defined elsewhere in the rules, and hence whose definitions would be based
> on linguistic interpretation (you'll note I didn't say game custom - see
> Rule 101 for why).  If you accept that Rule 101 should not be interpreted
> tautologically if an alternative definition is reasonable, then game
> custom and linguistic interpretation are distinct entities.  What, then,
> is customary interpretation?  It appears to be a non sequitur - game
> custom cannot interpret the language by rule 101.

Any CFJ over a sticky issue such as this one inevitably comes down to game
custom.  The Rules tell us how to play, but game custom tells us what the
Rules mean.  While Rule 101 tells us that game custom and linguistic
interpretation are external concepts, it does not say that they are
necessarily distinct.  In my experience in Acka, they have not been
treated as such.  I would also like to point out that the "weasel word" of
game state can be found in other Rules as well, including Rule 101.  

In any event, even if they are seperate, I don't see any particular
problem with understanding "customary interpretation."  You have already
made an interpretation of these words by claiming that they mean a
linguistic interpretation determined by game custom.  Another resonable
linguistic interpretation would be to examine the two words in question to
see what they mean in the English language.  I'm too tired to go ruffling
through dictionaries, but I don't doubt you can figure out what that
phrase means if you were to do so.
  
> However, this leads to the question as to whether this "throwaway" use of
> customary interpretation overrules Rule 101 and implicit game custom that
> interpretation of words is not actually game custom, but linguistic
> interpretation.  From this point, this sentence gets complicated enough
> that I will leave it in the capable hands of the Justices.
> 
> (Note that the meaning of Rule 0 is determined by linguistic
> interpretation.  It does not affect the customary interpretation of Rule
> 1, because customary interpretation is what meaning lies in a rule's
> words.  Rule 0 simply leads to the last paragraph of Rule 1 being ignored,
> regardless of what customary interpretation it may have.  There is nothing
> that requires that a legal change, imposed by another rule, affects a
> customary interpretation of the Rule.)
> 
> 

I don't understand.  You tell us that it is impossible to make a
"customary interpretation" of Rule 1, and then you tell us that Rule 0
does not change said customary interpretation.  You do not explain why
declaring that a rule, or part of a rule, has no effect, somehow does not
change the way that rule is interpreted.  You seem to be saying that so
long as Rule 0/2000 does not actually try to change the actual
semantic meaning of the words contained in Rule 1, that it is not changing
the customary interpretation of said rule.  This is an interesting way to
read that particular sentence of Rule 1, but not one I think the Supreme
Court is likely to share.

> 6: "This rule shall still
> be interpreted according to game custom, however, and this rule shall not
> be interpreted so as to forbid its correct interpretation from being
> established via otherwise legal CFJ proceedings."
> Interesting.  This claims that game custom is what interprets a rule.
> This could either (a) conflict with Rule 101, or (b) lead to this rule
> having no meaning at all - because game custom is not linguistic
> interpretation for rule 101, and hence by Rule 1 it is not interpreted by
> game custom, but then this sentence has no meaning and so it is
> interpreted by game custom, yadda yadda..
> Therefore, while all other rules are subject to linguistic interpretation,
> this rule is interpreted according to game custom.

Ahem.  To quote Rule 101 "All players must abide by all the rules then in
effect, in the form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in
accordance with current game custom."  Clearly, interpreting Rule 1 in
accordance with game custom is far from creating a conflict with Rule 101.
The rest of your arguement on this kind of relies on such a conflict
existing, but I would like to repeat that there is nothing in the rules
that says that linguistic interpretation and game custom are necessarily
seperate, or that one cannot be used to understand the other.

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

                            - Vynd, also lacking a Bronze Torch

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:27:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tyranny and Oppression rule.

> Amongst the plethora of proposals, amendments and rules, The Conspiracy has
> triumphed. My attempt to raise a zombie horde has failed, through no fault
> of mine, due to a petty rule (which I believe someone created out of thin
> air). How can I be expected to combat such overpowering evil and prejudice
> when they have such total control over the rules?
> Once more I have been penalised; my score reduced. Is there no end to their
> evil? How can such unfairness and inequality be allowed to persist? Will I
> forever be victimised? Bereft of points? Brushed aside as insignificant by
> the tyrannical ruling elite? Surely good and justice must eventually
> triumph?

Are these really complaints? They sound more like incitements to riot.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:43:55 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 477 Theories

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > The only paragraph of Rule 1 that claims to give it preferences is the
> > last one:
> Yeah, I don't think thats in dispute.
> > 
> > 4: "No new rule may be created, nor any existing rule changed in any way
> > so as to specify any alternative definition for any of the language of
> > this rule."  Rule 0 does not claim to redefine any part of the rule.  It
> > merely claims that, whatever definition the last paragraph of Rule 1 has,
> > it is to be completely ignored.
> > 
> 
> OK, now this I take serious issue with.  You are trying to say that by
> saying the last paragraph of Rule 1 has no effect, Rule 0/2000 does not
> redefine that paragraph.  I do not see how the negation of a paragraph is
> not also a redefinition of that paragraph.  Rule 0/2000 is attempting to
> redefine the last paragraph as having no effect, no meaning.  I realize,
> of course, that you will disagree, and in the end it will come down to how
> the Supreme Court interprets "definition."

Is this actually a redefinition, or merely saying "I don't care what the
definition is, we're going to ignore it".  That's one essential question.

Actually, I realise now that this may be bypassed.  If the rule number is
not part of the rule, changing the rule number does not change the rule.
Therefore the "rule changed in any way" provision does not apply.

> 
> > 5: "The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the
> > customary interpretation of this rule to be changed."
> > Now this is the sentence that it appears the appellant of the CFJ is
> > hanging eir hopes on.  Conveniently, it is full of weasel words like
> > "customary interpretation" and "game state", neither of which is clearly
> > defined elsewhere in the rules, and hence whose definitions would be based
> > on linguistic interpretation (you'll note I didn't say game custom - see
> > Rule 101 for why).  If you accept that Rule 101 should not be interpreted
> > tautologically if an alternative definition is reasonable, then game
> > custom and linguistic interpretation are distinct entities.  What, then,
> > is customary interpretation?  It appears to be a non sequitur - game
> > custom cannot interpret the language by rule 101.
> 
> Any CFJ over a sticky issue such as this one inevitably comes down to game
> custom.  The Rules tell us how to play, but game custom tells us what the
> Rules mean.  While Rule 101 tells us that game custom and linguistic
> interpretation are external concepts, it does not say that they are
> necessarily distinct.  In my experience in Acka, they have not been
> treated as such.  I would also like to point out that the "weasel word" of
> game state can be found in other Rules as well, including Rule 101.  

I know that, but vague concepts such as "game state" do tend to be rather
hard to pin down.

> 
> In any event, even if they are seperate, I don't see any particular
> problem with understanding "customary interpretation."  You have already
> made an interpretation of these words by claiming that they mean a
> linguistic interpretation determined by game custom.  Another resonable
> linguistic interpretation would be to examine the two words in question to
> see what they mean in the English language.  I'm too tired to go ruffling
> through dictionaries, but I don't doubt you can figure out what that
> phrase means if you were to do so.

So what you're saying is that the interpretation of the rules is what the
words say they mean.  So the fact that another rule claims that these
words have no effect doesn't affect their meaning?  I believe
this must be the case, otherwise you couldn't interpret the rules at all
(there would be no starting point to work from).

>   
> > However, this leads to the question as to whether this "throwaway" use of
> > customary interpretation overrules Rule 101 and implicit game custom that
> > interpretation of words is not actually game custom, but linguistic
> > interpretation.  From this point, this sentence gets complicated enough
> > that I will leave it in the capable hands of the Justices.
> > 
> > (Note that the meaning of Rule 0 is determined by linguistic
> > interpretation.  It does not affect the customary interpretation of Rule
> > 1, because customary interpretation is what meaning lies in a rule's
> > words.  Rule 0 simply leads to the last paragraph of Rule 1 being ignored,
> > regardless of what customary interpretation it may have.  There is nothing
> > that requires that a legal change, imposed by another rule, affects a
> > customary interpretation of the Rule.)
> > 
> > 
These were two distinct arguments.  I didn't make that clear, sorry.  The
first one is if the Justices believe that "customary interpretation" is a
non-sequitur, the second if they don't.

> 
> I don't understand.  You tell us that it is impossible to make a
> "customary interpretation" of Rule 1, and then you tell us that Rule 0
> does not change said customary interpretation.  You do not explain why
> declaring that a rule, or part of a rule, has no effect, somehow does not
> change the way that rule is interpreted.  You seem to be saying that so
> long as Rule 0/2000 does not actually try to change the actual
> semantic meaning of the words contained in Rule 1, that it is not changing
> the customary interpretation of said rule.  This is an interesting way to
> read that particular sentence of Rule 1, but not one I think the Supreme
> Court is likely to share.

Okay.  I did leave out something here.  The reason why the declaration of
no effect does not change customary interpretation is that it changes
statutory interpretation.  Regardless of how custom dictates we interpret
the rule, Rule 0 states that it shall be overridden.  Therefore the
customary interpretation has not changed, but the legal interpretation
has.  (This is the good old common law argument - YMMV in Quebec,
continental Europe, Louisiana, and other Civil Law zones).

> 
> 
> > 6: "This rule shall still
> > be interpreted according to game custom, however, and this rule shall not
> > be interpreted so as to forbid its correct interpretation from being
> > established via otherwise legal CFJ proceedings."
> > Interesting.  This claims that game custom is what interprets a rule.
> > This could either (a) conflict with Rule 101, or (b) lead to this rule
> > having no meaning at all - because game custom is not linguistic
> > interpretation for rule 101, and hence by Rule 1 it is not interpreted by
> > game custom, but then this sentence has no meaning and so it is
> > interpreted by game custom, yadda yadda..
> > Therefore, while all other rules are subject to linguistic interpretation,
> > this rule is interpreted according to game custom.
> 
> Ahem.  To quote Rule 101 "All players must abide by all the rules then in
> effect, in the form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in
> accordance with current game custom."  Clearly, interpreting Rule 1 in
> accordance with game custom is far from creating a conflict with Rule 101.

Note that rule 101 mentions that "Game custom, spirit of the game, and
linguistic interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or
part of the game state."  If linguistic interpretation and game custom
were not distinct, then there would be no need to mention them both.
Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that they are distinct (more
reasonable than to assume that whoever framed the rule was being
tautological).  That is why I believe they are separate concepts.

> The rest of your arguement on this kind of relies on such a conflict
> existing, but I would like to repeat that there is nothing in the rules
> that says that linguistic interpretation and game custom are necessarily
> seperate, or that one cannot be used to understand the other.
> 
> > --
> > Duncan "" Richer aka
> > Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
> > Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
> > 
> 
>                             - Vynd, also lacking a Bronze Torch
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 

- --
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: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 21:44:12 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tyranny and Oppression rule.

For those who, after reading my 'complaints', felt the sudden,
irresistible urge
to loot, burn, smash and pillage public property, I will provide a
synopsis of my
three (3) previously posted complaints.
( NB this is merely a corollary to my previous complaints not a further
exercise
of my 'inalienable rights' as defined by rule 1129 )

#1:    loss of points on proposal 2414 : "You never told me about that
rule!"
#2:    loss of points on proposal 2415:: "You keep changing the rules!"
#3:    loss of points due to failed voodoo ritual : "I didn't understand
the
rules!"

PS
    Anyone still looting, burning, smashing, pillaging etc., is politely
requested to stop.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:29:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tyranny and Oppression rule.

> PS
>     Anyone still looting, burning, smashing, pillaging etc., is politely
> requested to stop.

Whew! Well, that's a load off my mind!

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:35:16 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Prop 2456

While this proposal no doubt means well, it severely discriminates against
the Challenged player in a duel.  As eir second has to referee, they must
find a second willing to referee any game - because until a second has
been chosen, the game that the duel will consist of is unknown.  This may
well make it impossible for the Challenged player to find a second, and
therefore lead to a lot more petty dueling without basis.

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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:11:23 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Prop 2456

> While this proposal no doubt means well, it severely discriminates against
> the Challenged player in a duel.  As eir second has to referee, they must
> find a second willing to referee any game - because until a second has
> been chosen, the game that the duel will consist of is unknown.  This may
> well make it impossible for the Challenged player to find a second, and
> therefore lead to a lot more petty dueling without basis.

I'm not sure of the logic in your last sentence, but...well, basically
I want to make it so that a Duel will never languish without a Referee.
Would you rather it was the Challenging player's Second?

Also, refereeing most games is pretty easy, so it's not a real big burden...
And besides, something that just occurred to me, the Challenged player
gets to pick the game, so if e doesn't consult with eir Second before
choosing it, e is an insensitive clod and should forfeit the Duel anyway.
:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bonnie Raitt:Nick of Time
Current Book--TesseractsQ
In the space ship, the silver space ship, the lion takes control.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:29:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Some Descriptions 'n' Stuff

> I hereby apply to build a 20 meter (I want to say metre, but I'll defer
> to the rules) high Ostentatious Tower on top of my house.  This will cost
> me A$60.  The description of the tower is as follows:

According to Rule 841, Towers must be at least 35 meters tall.  So you'll
have to save up for this one.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bonnie Raitt:Nick of Time
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Argent, on a pile Gules goutty de poix a chief Vert.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:37:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: L'ecosse

Well, it looks like K 2 has managed to achieve that most righteous of
feats, Crazy French-Scotsmanhood!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bonnie Raitt:Nick of Time
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Tell me again, what are the limits on the position of anti-christ?

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:40:55 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Some Descriptions 'n' Stuff

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > I hereby apply to build a 20 meter (I want to say metre, but I'll defer
> > to the rules) high Ostentatious Tower on top of my house.  This will cost
> > me A$60.  The description of the tower is as follows:
> 
> According to Rule 841, Towers must be at least 35 meters tall.  So you'll
> have to save up for this one.  :-)

{{All references to the word "metre" in the next sentence are transformed
to "meter".}}

I hereby buy a 35 metre tower.  The description is as in my previous
message which erroneously claimed to build a 20 metre tower, except that
any occurrences of the number 20 are replaced with the number 35.
This tower will cost me A$105.

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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:05:26 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: L'ecosse

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> Well, it looks like K 2 has managed to achieve that most righteous of
> feats, Crazy French-Scotsmanhood!
> 
> 

As Acka's reigning Crazy French-Scotsman, I would like to say a few words
about this occassion.

What's with this Crazy French-Scotsman rule anyway?  I mean, I work and
toil for YEARS to achieve my august standing, and here this upstart comes
along and just like THAT, he's a Crazy French-Scotsman too!  This is an
outrage, an affront to all that is good and true.  Surely the rules have
been changed since I became a Crazy French-Scotsman, and I suspect K 2 is
behind it.  Sure, e may have only been in Acka a short while, but that
doesn't mean he can't be a force of corruption and evil!  It is my firm
belief that meerly by allowing K 2 to join the game, changes in the
ruleset occured.  The evidence is undeniable!  Look closely at them, stare
at the rules, and soon, withing a few hours, they will begin twisting and
warping before your very eyes...  In any event, I hope that K 2's reign of
terror will soon end, the goal of Crazy French-Scotsmanhood achieved.  I
fear, however, that this is only the begining of a nefarious plot, a
scheme of epic proportions which probably involves the Postal Code in some
way, to eradicate free will and hapiness in Acka.  Thats what I was trying
to do when I became a Crazy French-Scotsman, and it stands to reason that
it is K 2's goal as well.  Well its not going to happen, I won't let it
happen!  Not unless K 2 buys me out first.

                     - Senator Vynd, Crazy-French Scotsman, Evil Overlord
		       of Ackanomic (retired)

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:34:03 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (two-star)

> Another new player is to be added to our fair game of Ackanomic.
> His name is Henry Towsner, his email is [email-masked], and he
> has chosen the name "else...if".
> 
> two-star has been chosen as else...if's Mentor.

  Isn't that Habeous Corpus, back again?

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/ and find out about text adventures!
If you don't have anything to say, get off the soapbox.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:35:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (two-star)

> Another new player is to be added to our fair game of Ackanomic.
> His name is Henry Towsner, his email is [email-masked], and he
> has chosen the name "else...if".
> 
> two-star has been chosen as else...if's Mentor.

  Isn't that Habeous Corpus, back again?
  (Shouldn't something happen with undead?)

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
If it's before midnight, it's early in the morning.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 20:46:04 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (two-star)

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > Another new player is to be added to our fair game of Ackanomic.
> > His name is Henry Towsner, his email is [email-masked], and he
> > has chosen the name "else...if".
> > 
> > two-star has been chosen as else...if's Mentor.
> 
>   Isn't that Habeous Corpus, back again?

A bit difficult. Habeous Corpus is now Voting Gnome.

The only other player who has been through earthlink.net is Narf.
I'm pretty sure that Joshua and Henry are different people.  (At least, I
hope :-))

Welcome to Acka, else...if!  Anything you need help with, feel free to
ask.  Also note Rule 1129 (hint to other players who are still in their
new period, there's 41 points on offer at least from this)

- --
Duncan "wish I'd maximised my FSCs, I only got 11" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 16:10:01 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (two-star)

>  Isn't that Habeous Corpus, back again?
>  (Shouldn't something happen with undead?)
	I'm fairly sure I'm not someone else.  Better check the email address

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:43:22 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : suggest MetaMorph action - join Synod

I suggest the following action to be taken by MetaMorph:
Purchase a Seat in the Synod.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:51:01 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : suggest MetaMorph action - join Synod

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> I suggest the following action to be taken by MetaMorph:
> Purchase a Seat in the Synod.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

From a man who controls the Synod (or will shortly) this seems like a
wasteful act.  Especially when RexBank is already a member of the Synod,
so the minimum conditions for activity have been met.

- --
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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:21:50 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Action

I am leaving my house, going over to the library going down to *that*
room, you know, The Vault of the Book, and am wondering if anything is
going to happen.

The Gingham Wearer

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:59:00 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Public Request

I am hereby applying to join the Harf political party.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 22:39:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 471 Appeal Verdict

TRUE was upheld on CFJ 471 with a penalty to the appealer of
1 point.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 471
  Subject: That message
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-11-14 21:33
    Judge: Malenkai (declined)
2nd Judge: Slakko (declined)
3rd Judge: two-star (selected 97-11-18 23:22)
Judgement: TRUE
   Appeal: TRUE

Statement:

Red Barn buried a Majik called Big-Nosed Kilroy on October 13th, 1997.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Red Barn posted a message with the subject "Trinket Creation" on October
10th, 1997, which described, among other attempted actions, the creation
and burial of a Majik called Big-Nosed Kilroy.  Malenkai pointed out later
that day that none of the actions succeeded, since(then)it was impossible
to take a public action in a message whose subject was not prefaced by
"Acka:" or "Ackanomic:".

On October 13, 1997, Red Barn posted a message with subject "Acka: Redo",
in which he states:

   I repeat the attempted actions in that message, in the order in which
   I attempted them earlier.

The context(which includes a quote of Malenkai's response)makes it
clear which message "that message" refers to, i.e. "Trinket Creation".
The "Trinket Creation" message does unambiguously(and in great
detail)specify a sequence of attempted actions.  Therefore I contend that
the attempted actions in "Acka: Redo" were specified fully and
unambiguously, and furthermore did not fail for any other reason(since the
game state did not change between the two posts to make the actions
impossible).

Therefore, at the time "Acka: Redo" was received by the server, the actions
specified in "Trinket Creation" were performed, and Big-Nosed Kilroy was
buried.

two-star's Reasoning:

I judge true, based on a vague sense from sort of looking at the
postmaster rule that it should work.

I intended to have enough time to do this right, but they shifted my
weekend back three days at work, so what with a dentist appointment, an
extra chorale rehearsal, and a friend of my family in town in the last
couple days I didn't have time. I realize I havent been pulling my
weight here lately. I've kinda gotten out of the rhythm of things. I'm
bad.

Malenkai's Appeal Reasoning:

My opinion was that the first message did not exist at all in the acka
game state, therefore there was no "that message", therefore there were
no "attempted actions", therefore some of the referrants in the above
passage refer to things that did not exist in acka, and therefore the
above quote is vacuous, and therefore what it attempts to do fails
(or failed). [above in this paragraph refers to Alfvaen's comments in
the CFJ reasoning].

How can one repeat attempted actions that did not exist?  It would be
one thing if the actions failed because he did not have enough money 
the first time (but it was otherwise a legal message), but in this 
case the *message* he refers to never existed, with mail filters on 
acka mail it was not publically knowable, therefore a referral to a
non-PK thing has no meaning to me, or to the rules, I would argue.
Its like saying: 'I perform the actions listed in 
/home/malenkai/acka/actions.html', or I perform the actions listed
on the back of my tee shirt.

This reasoning is a little different than the discussion of the
ambiguity of the phrase "that message", as you discuss, and it is
important to point out that it is an entirely different argument.
My argument is based on that fact that "that message" does not
exist in the nomic game state, or rather, that its contents are
not publically knowable (for example -- filter on arrival as per
the postal code, then double delete in the mail client).

A note on game custom: Alfvaen harfed it as TRUE and I harfed it
as FALSE, based on our independent interpretations.  So how it
was harfed does not appear to set a precedent.  If it comes to 
"spirit of the game", I would argue that allowing official action
statements to refer to content written in extra-nomic media is
a bad idea, thus indicating FALSE in SotG.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The description of the original message as being "extra-nomic media"
is misleading, if not inaccurate. The absence of "Acka:" in the
subject line meant only that it was not a public message.  A
great deal of Ackanomic business is done in messages that are not
public, and the Court's opinion is that such messages are nomic, rather
than extra-nomic, messages.  This Court does not consider Ackanomic
voting to be extra-nomic, for instance, even though it is conducted via
non-public messages.  Business with the Clerk of the Courts is routinely
conducted via non-public messages as well, and the Court does not
consider such messages as being extra-nomic.  The condition of being
a nomic message is determined by the content of the message, not by
its subject; that the rules give special significance to public
messages does not mean that non-public messages are extra-nomic.  (As
an extension, the Court observes that private messages have no special
requirements as to their subject, so filtering one's email based on the
requirements of the Postal Code could be an unwise practice, especially
for many of the Officers.)

That aside, the fundamental question is then: under what conditions,
if any, a reference in a public message to data located elsewhere can
constitute a full and unambiguous specification of that data (as per
Rule 373).

Clearly it is possible to give a reference of sufficient precision to
specify just about any referent without any chance of the referent
being mistaken. This might, for instance, require referring to data
content at a specific time (i.e., "the actions listed at
http://my_server.acka/actions.html at 10:57pm on 12/2/97"). It is
possible, therefore, to be absolutely clear about what data is being
specified. The Court is satisfied that Red Barn's message adequately
specified to which information it referred.

The remaining question is whether such a reference can be construed to
make the data unambiguous. The Court believes that in this case it
does. There is no rule-based justification for the claim that Red
Barn's first message did not exist. It is true that it was not a
public message, that it could potentially have been filtered out, and
even that it was not publically knowable.  The Court maintains,
however, that there is a distinction between these conditions on the one
hand and ambiguity on the other. The meaning of Red Barn's statement is
clear, despite his reference to a non-public message.

Malenkai's hypothetical examples of a web page which can be altered at
will, or a distant T-shirt, impose unrealistic obstacles of a
practical nature upon accessing, and thus disambiguating, the data.
Such issues are not applicable to the particular case before the Court.
Red Barn may have been guilty of thoughtlessness or unsporting play, but
his actions met the requirements of the rules.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #396
*******************************