Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #406
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, December 10 1997     Volume 02 : Number 406

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:39:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: SPAM Suggested Action

Slakko wrote:
> So basically no matter what anyone says about how the issue has been
> judged in the past, it will come down to someone's interpretation of the
> rules over someone else's, regardless of previous CFJs.
> 
> Why CFJ?

I think it is possible to judge CFJs like the following true:

"
The verdict on CFJ 999 was not reached as described in the rules;
Moreover, the verdict was incorrect.
"

We live in a complicated game state where new facts come to light
all the time.  In the example of CFJ 473/482, the crux of the 
ruling on CFJ 473 came down to the interpretation of "necessary"
in rule 419.3 -- the Court's interpretation thereof.  It is possible
that another judge would have interpreted that term more broadly,
delivering a different (wrong?) verdict in this case.  However,
the Court did establish the customary interpretation of that rule
for the future.

The reason I posit 'wrong' is that the facts that underpinned
CFJ 482 came to light after the verdict was reached, and they are
rock solid, IMO, thus 473 would have been judged wrong in this
hypothetical instance in light of those facts missed by the 
hypothetical Court (and missed by the actual Court in this example). 

So its not necessarily a case of the next judge interpreting things
differently, its possibly the case of the first judge not following
rules 101 and 215, or new facts being discovered, as in the hypothetical
example above.  It is also possible that new facts will be presented
later that indicate 482's verdict was reached in error.  That can
be said of any CFJ.

The case I brought to light with regard to history of the game state
is similar to new facts possibly being discovered.

So, to answer your question, I do not think it comes down to one
judge's opinion over another, its more like the above.  A good example
is CFJ 481.  It is my personal opinion that CFJ 481 should be judged
FALSE for the exact reason you cite -- a previous judge or judges in
a previous CFJ have already made a ruling on the issue in question,
and *no* new facts have come to light on the matter, and no evidence
was presented by the initiator or anyone else that indicates game
custom w.r.t *that* issue has changed (except, possibly, the past tense
thing I brought up :-).

This sort of thing is interesting to me.  If it is not to other players
in this nomic or appears disruptive, I apologize, and will do other
things :-)

Malenkai
Expert on Judicial Stuff

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:49:08 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Infrequent Ackan Vol 1 Issue 3

Volume 1, Issue 3
December 10, 1997
In this issue:
1. Editorial
2. Latest Ackanomic News, straight from the Horse's Mouth
3. The Chess Page
 
Editorial
Welcome to the third issue of The Infrequent Ackan. After a quick break
from Ackan work, the Editor has worked through the great pile of email and
restored some measure of balance.  The main trend in Acka these days
appears to be towards more active players.  This can only be seen to be
good, for more people playing the game means a greater variety of thought,
and more original ideas entering the Acka fold.  A hearty welcome to all
players who have joined the game since this Editor first set eyes on Acka,
and may your time in Acka be long and prosperous.
In game play terms, we are still waiting on the results of CFJs to
determine whether Cycle 16 ended or not on Thursday 27 November.  However,
some more pressing issues appear to be at hand.  The first attempt this
Editor has heard of to use a Pyraic Frobnotzer ended in Crumble, while the
Vulcan Party appears to be amassing gadgets ready for an onslaught in the
rules.   We can only hope that somehow the rest of Acka bands together to
restrict the Vulcan menace yet again.
Slakko
Editor, The Infrequent Ackan

Latest Ackanomic News
By Slakko
Deuce Reporter, Infrequent Ackan
The SPAM Party's attack on Rule 1 appears to be complete, provided that
the appealed CFJ is not overturned.  Its supposed immutability has been
eliminated, and it has been shifted to a more appropriate place in the
Ruleset.  SPAM has also gained from an increase in membership, making it
the largest Political Party in Acka with a resounding membership of 6!
In other news:
The Grab-a-Donkey game had a null-effect round.  One wonders how long it
can go on for.
Malenkai definitely did not win a cycle in the last 168 hours.
Odo on the Wormhole began proceedings to once again become a Church, and
thus possibly reinstate Synod.

The Chess Page
By Slakko
Chess-Umpire
The last week in Party Chess has been interesting, to say the least.
/dev/joe has managed to have 3 distinct Plays, all of which resulted in
captures.  However, despite this apparent lack of regard for his
opponent's number of pieces, /dev/joe has actually had his weight reduced
back below 100.  We at the Ackan find this curious, and asked  the
Chess-Umpire for a reply.  His only response was "What the hell do I care?
I just calculate the weights.  Go talk to Niccolo, or perhaps Mohammed if
you can find him."  It goes without saying that this verbal abuse took
this reporter aback somewhat, especially as it was directed at the person
who was giving it.
This column also received a correction last week, courtesy of Niccolo
Flychuck.  He pointed out that /dev/joe's Weight as of last week's column
was indeed a record for the current weight calculation scheme, but did not
constitute an all-time record.  We at the Ackan apologise for this error
whole-heartedly.
Some changes in the overall state of the game have occurred quite quickly,
so a quick sum up is again in order:
1. /dev/joe is gaining pieces (except for the Kamikaze he used), but
losing Weight.  This can't happen for much longer, unless more people
insist on Checking him.  What will happen next?
2. Slakko has been devastated, losing his Tornado and Echo, to be reduced
to a Weight of 8.  How can he possibly get back from here?
3. Red Barn, thanks to /dev/joe, is no longer second on the weights.  How
long will he survive?
4. Niccolo and Alfvaen appear to be the main contenders for the new second
place position.  They haven't attacked each other yet, how long will this
dtente last?
5. Lastly, still no move from Karma.
Happy Party Chessing!

Advertisers: Do you want cheap ad space?  Do you want propaganda value for
your Ackadollar?
Then why not advertise in The Infrequent Ackan?  Email Slakko on
[email-masked] to reply.

The Infrequent Ackan, first to you with Ackan news.
Copyright  Duncan Richer aka Slakko, 10/12/97.
Check us out on the web, at
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/infrequent.html 

- --
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: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:49:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

FALSE has been upheld on CFJ 474, with an appeal
penalty of one point to the appealer.

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
   Appeal: 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.

Slakko's Appeal Reasoning:

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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

First of all, the possibility of the phrase "gains 1 win" referring to
a trinket called "win" is pretty much ruled out, as it did not exist
at the time the rule took on the wording in question. (See CFJ 415.)

Now, there appear to be three places in the rules outside of Rule 940
where the word "win" is used as a noun (excluding its use in the
phrase "Paradox Win CFJ"). One is in Rule 1250.14 "Diplomacy", where
it is something that can be claimed; this is consistent with something
that can be gained. The other two were identified by the original
judge, and in both of these instances it is an event - something that
occurs. However, "win" is also used as a verb to refer to the same
thing - the same sort of "win" - in all three of these cases. Nowhere
in the rules is one sort of win referred to consistently as a noun.

What this tells us is basically what we already knew from standard
English usage: that when someone "gains 1 win", they have achieved a
winning condition - they have won something. The Court finds this
interpretation of Rule 940 to be the most reasonable possibility.

This still leaves the question of whether it refers specifically to
winning a Cycle. The Court finds that the evidence provided by the
original judge for a customary interpretation of an unspecified win
meaning a Cycle win to be rather thin. The Ackanomic rules have, since
the invention of the Cycle, been careful to a fault to call a Cycle
win a Cycle win. Rather, it seems clear that the detail of exactly
what is won has simply not been specified. Rule 940 specifically
states that exactly one win is gained, when there are potentially a
number of possible wins available.

Therefore, we turn to Rule 405 "Speaker", which says:

> 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.

It may seem a bit unusual to consider "the set of possible wins", but
this is consistent with the use of "win" as a noun in Rule 940.

If we wish to apply this clause to the current situation, we must
first determine all of the possible choices. It seems reasonable to
accept the limitation that one cannot win a game in which one has
been, or is currently, disqualified from winning. (In particular, this
means that one must be a participant in a game in order to "gain a
win" in it.) We should also find acceptable the limitation that one
cannot win a game that is not currently in progress. (This is not only
reasonable, but without it, we would have to contend not only with the
possibility of someone winning a game or Cycle for which a different
winner had long since been declared, but also the possibility of
winning games or Cycles that have yet to begin - which would make it
patently impossible for the Officer in Charge of Random Things to
abide by this interpretation.) Finally, we note that obvious: the game
must be winnable - it must have a winning condition. This excludes
games like Party Chess, which did not have a winning condition at the
time in question.

So, given these restrictions, we find that we have a clearly defined
method for determining the set of possibilities. When the Court
applied it to Malenkai and Alfvaen on November 27, noon, it discovered
that

* Alfvaen was eligible to win an Ackanomic Cycle, a game of Ye Olde
Rusty Lantern, a game of Mediocrity, and a game of Viruses; and
* Malenkai was eligible to win an Ackanomic Cycle.

(Note that although Malenkai is also a participant in the game of Ye
Olde Rusty Lantern, he is the Barkeep/referee, and so is not qualified
to win that game.)

Since Malenkai, the specific subject of the CFJ's original statement,
has only one possibility, namely the current Cycle, the Court is
upholding the original verdict of False. (Alfvaen's status, on the
other hand, will have to await determination by the Officer in Charge
of Random Things.) The Court penalizes the appealer 1 point.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:52:02 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 475 Appeal Verdict

FALSE has been upheld on CFJ 475.  Penalty to the appealer
of 1 point.

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
   Appeal: 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 ]}}

Slakko's Appeal Reasoning:

In eir Verdict, Alfvaen stated that there was only one instance of a word
with root "win" (in this particular case, "Winners") elsewhere in the
ruleset which lacked a referent.  Further, he stated that the
interpretation of this was "clearly" that of "Winner of a Cycle" according
to game custom.

Here is the last part of Alfvaen's reasoning:

>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.

Firstly, the text in question was part of the rule concerning the
Historian, a note about details that were to be kept on a web page:

The duties are to maintain a WWW page of the History of Ackanomic. Content
of the page is up to the Historian [but should include the comings and
goings of political parties (and their agendas); history of Presidents,
Senators, and Winners, notable historical events such as the Quorum
Crisis, etc]. The Historian should maintain a copy of all Historical
Dissertations. 

I note that there is only one WWW page publicly known to exist in
Ackanomic which contains the names of the Winners of Previous Cycles.
This page is not maintained by the Historian, but rather by /dev/joe.  If
game custom were to indicate that the Historian should list Winners of
Previous Cycles on eir page, then current game play contradicts current
game custom, a state which I thought was impossible because "game custom"
includes assumptions about the way the game is currently played.

Secondly, even if the term "Winners" as in Rule 420.1 above is interpreted
as "Winners of Previous Cycles" then there is a problem.  Rule 344, Notes
and Comments, states that 

A left square bracket in a rule or other text begins a note, which ends
with the next following right square bracket, or the end of the rule or
body of text, whichever comes first. [This means that notes do not nest.]
In the Ackanomic language, notes have no semantic meaning, whatever their
lexical content. 

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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court refers the reader to CFJ 474 for the specific reasoning.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:59:40 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

I must admit that I find it intriguing that the Supreme Court found that
a win is an object, despite the fact that nowhere in the rules are wins
described as entities.  I would be interested to hear from the Supreme
Court how they came to this conclusion in particular.  I would also like
to hear what the Supreme Court defines an object to be, if not an entity.

I also thank the Supreme Court for specifying an appellant penalty of 1
point, as I felt that this was not a petty appeal, but that points of law
(which have now been clarified) were still yet to be considered.

Yours,
Slakko

> 
> Supreme Court's Reasoning:

> This still leaves the question of whether it refers specifically to
> winning a Cycle. The Court finds that the evidence provided by the
> original judge for a customary interpretation of an unspecified win
> meaning a Cycle win to be rather thin. The Ackanomic rules have, since
> the invention of the Cycle, been careful to a fault to call a Cycle
> win a Cycle win. Rather, it seems clear that the detail of exactly
> what is won has simply not been specified. Rule 940 specifically
> states that exactly one win is gained, when there are potentially a
> number of possible wins available.
> 
> Therefore, we turn to Rule 405 "Speaker", which says:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It may seem a bit unusual to consider "the set of possible wins", but
> this is consistent with the use of "win" as a noun in Rule 940.

- --
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: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:28:14 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 147 (The Gingham Wearer)

- ----------
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: CFCJ 147 (The Gingham Wearer)
> Date: 10 December 1997 01:41
> 
> CFCJ 147 has been assigned to The Gingham Wearer.

I accept.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:29:14 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: SPAM Suggested Action

> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>

> On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, mr cwm wrote:
> 
> > I, also.  (Does it matter any more?)
> 
> Nup.
> 
> I hereby make a new suggestion.
> I suggest that SPAM abandon its open door membership policy.
> I approve this suggestion.

I approve it too.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:05:59 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: Alfvaen's status

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# player: Alfvaen
# I am using the dice server to determine Alfvaen's status
# per CFJ 474 (using a 4 sided die):
# 1: wins a cycle
# 2: wins a game of YORL
# 3: wins a game of Mediocrity
# 4: wins a game of Viruses
# Malenkai

No. of sides on every die:      4
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

      4

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Wed Dec 10 10:05:52 1997
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id KAA12219 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:05:52 -0800
> Received: from mail.itw.net(206.138.122.6) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma012217; Wed Dec 10 10:05:45 1997
> Received: from itw.com (4-112.SURFER.TIDALWAVE.COM [208.211.4.112]) by mail.itw.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA24502 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:05:43 -0500
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:04:59 -0500
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; U)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: f
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 4
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: Alfvaen's status
> 
> #C player: Alfvaen
> #C I am using the dice server to determine Alfvaen's status
> #C per CFJ 474 (using a 4 sided die):
> #C 1: wins a cycle
> #C 2: wins a game of YORL
> #C 3: wins a game of Mediocrity
> #C 4: wins a game of Viruses
> #C Malenkai

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

iQCVAwUBNI7aBj8NitsTFjcVAQHCPQQAwHni1BIXKaBRmYf0xejB4iJ14dxU+SET
dTGPJxSloQE4BaM2dG0qoEYqxBX1E28r//ZQcpmdd/gQIRdP7s0/vKpdcIdF9C74
GQ77tUoUACm3GkFtUYZwQLs0witXFB/6R5ceOGskG6wnk4++iVjDF8K7Y9kHWlv4
0hvvuw7YqII=
=CTe6
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:08:20 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka Transfer

I give 350 A$ to SPAM.  

(Not sure if there is anything else I need to do to make this official?)

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:19:49 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka Transfer

> I give 350 A$ to SPAM.  

> (Not sure if there is anything else I need to do to make this official?)

No; Ackadollars and Trinkets are gift entities, so if you don't explicitly
say that you "offer" them, they get automatically transferred(as long as
the entity you are giving them to is eligible to own them, which I
believe means a Player or Organization).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Pete Townshend:White City: A Novel
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:Dayworld Breakup
I never buy music on impulse.  Only on warp.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:23:53 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Alfvaen's status

> # player: Alfvaen
> # I am using the dice server to determine Alfvaen's status
> # per CFJ 474 (using a 4 sided die):
> # 1: wins a cycle
> # 2: wins a game of YORL
> # 3: wins a game of Mediocrity
> # 4: wins a game of Viruses
> # Malenkai

> No. of sides on every die:      4
> No. of dice for every roll:     1
> No. of dice rolls requested:    1
> No. of rolls per line:          1

>       4

Hmmm.  Well.  I guess that this means that I won the game of Viruses
about two weeks ago.  How very interesting.  And I just finished
putting up the last round on the web pages.

If, as I presume, this means that the current game of Viruses cannot
continue, then I hereby volunteer to referee another one if anyone
happens to want to play.  Email me if you do.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Pete Townshend:White City: A Novel
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:Dayworld Breakup
The meek shall inherit the Earth, if that's okay with you

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:32:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Timing

So, does Balsamic Dragon pay end-of-cycle tax on eir A$10 reward for
refereeing a Viruses game?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Dream Theatre:Falling Into Infinity
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:Dayworld Breakup
Hey!  Who spiked the Jello?

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:56:54 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: On the Lamb

> I am taking posession of the little lamb. I am buying a wool sweater and
> putting it on. If anyone out there wishes to loan me a vending machine,
> I'll promise 50% of all proceeds on Santa's Beards in return, and will
> return the vending machine within 7 (three) days. 

There's one in the Treasury now...

> Financier: note the 10 A$ cost for lamb feed, 10 A$ for the sweater, and
> 20A$ court costs for the CFCJ.

I'd already done the CFCJ, and I know what the lamb costs.  "Why beholdeth
thou the mote that is in thy [Evil Twin]'s eye, but considereth not the
beam that is in thine own?"  [The Bible, Matthew 7:2-3]

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Eagles:Those Shoes
Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:Dayworld Breakup
Don't be scared; it's only dark.  Soon we'll hear a meadowlark.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #406
*******************************