Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #411
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, December 12 1997       Volume 02 : Number 411

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:06:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

> The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary,
> as if proposal 2439 was not accepted.
> 
> Then, the rule changes described in proposal 2439 are
> applied.
> 
> Then, the following rule change is applied:
> 
> Rule 506 is amended as follows:
 [amendment deleted]
> If it is the case that no player got any points from the passage of
> Proposal 2439, then score changes are applied as if the Proposal had
> passed with voting results as reported earlier for it by the Tabulator.

Wouldn't it be easier to do all the above by saying
"The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary, as if proposal
2439 contained the word "17th" instead of "third" [or whatever the correct
paragraph would have been] in the section which amends rule 506."

> Proposal 2488 is removed from the voting queue(with no penalty to
> breadbox).  [ It is now redundant. ]
> 
> Then, A$50000 is transferred to breadbox from the 
> treasury.  

An awfully big reward, but then Vulcan did take A$15000 and probably
equally much as far as the headquarters would have cost.  As long as you
have some big use planned for all that dough, and not just hoarding it
to win every auction for the next 6 months...

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:16:31 -0800
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 481 or not.

I decline CFJ 481 or remove my name from the CFJ inelegibility list,
whichever is legal.

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:43:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestions

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Malenkai wrote:
> > > I suggest that Pumpkin Patch Nomic build a Pyriac Frobnotzer with
> > > its second Secret Lab.  I approve of this suggestion.
> > 
> > So I guess this fails.  I suggest Pumpkin Patch Nomic
> > give this back to Vulcan.  I approve of this suggestion.
> 
> I suggest Vulcan accept the Frobnotzer from Pumpkin Patch Nomic.
> I approve of this suggestion.
> 
> /dev/joe

On the off chance that Malenkai really is trying to give us a Frobnotzer,
I approve as well.

I also suggest that Vulcan accept what I think Malenkai is actually
offering us, which is a Secret Lab.  I also happen to approve of this
suggestion.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:41:07 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > > Rule 103 prevents other rules from causing things to happen retroactively.
> > 
> > Not very successfully, as Rule 100 will soon demonstrate.  So why keep it?
> > That was my question.
> 
> Rule 100 most likely will not do anything retroactively.  The game
> state will be adjusted at the time rule 100 is created, *as if* the
> proposal had not be accepted.  In other words, lots of offsetting 
> transactions will occur in the game state behind the scenes to make
> it so, but *at* that time.  How does it magically do this?  We don't
> care, the rules say it is so, so it is so, sort of like the earth being
> flat.

While this may well be correct (who am I to argue with the great
Malenkai), it is nonetheless very worrying.  Apparently we are allowed to
"correct" the past without any worries.  How would you like it if, 2 years
later, enough players are willing to "correct" the past so that the first
15 cycles didn't happen?  That the game effectively started last Tuesday
or something?  I find that a ruleset which permits that is not a ruleset
with much safety built in.  I know that given enough pressure anything can
be accomplished, but we should at least do something to create the moral
precedent that changing the past is something which should only be done in
the most restricted of circumstances, and only when events require it to
maintain a semblance of normality.

Oh, public action.  I hereby withdraw my claim for an Expert title which I
have petitioned the Senate for.  After all, I don't think I deserve it,
given that today I may or may not have 2 wins, but in a couple of days
time I will definitely not have had 2 wins today.

- -- 
Duncan "retrospectively register myself as a player in Feb 96" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:00:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

> While this may well be correct (who am I to argue with the great
> Malenkai), it is nonetheless very worrying.  Apparently we are
> allowed to "correct" the past without any worries.  How would you
> like it if, 2 years later, enough players are willing to "correct"
> the past so that the first 15 cycles didn't happen?  That the game
> effectively started last Tuesday or something?  I find that a
> ruleset which permits that is not a ruleset with much safety built
> in.

Welcome to nomic. Hardly anything is safe in this game; that's the point.

I find these words strange coming from the player who made it his
mission to unseat Rule 1.

> I know that given enough pressure anything can be accomplished, but
> we should at least do something to create the moral precedent that
> changing the past is something which should only be done in the most
> restricted of circumstances, and only when events require it to
> maintain a semblance of normality.

Well, that is kind of what Rule 103 does.

At the moment I can recall only one other time that a retroactive rule
was created. That was done to avoid having to harf the incredibly
messed-up game state that would ensued from accepting the verdict of
CFJ 340. There are probably few other cases, and I would be willing to
bet that in each one the main motivation was trying to save a
messed-up game state.

You should not be too worried, is what I am saying. We do not sidestep
the retroactivity ban lightly.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:10:17 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > While this may well be correct (who am I to argue with the great
> > Malenkai), it is nonetheless very worrying.  Apparently we are
> > allowed to "correct" the past without any worries.  How would you
> > like it if, 2 years later, enough players are willing to "correct"
> > the past so that the first 15 cycles didn't happen?  That the game
> > effectively started last Tuesday or something?  I find that a
> > ruleset which permits that is not a ruleset with much safety built
> > in.
> 
> Welcome to nomic. Hardly anything is safe in this game; that's the point.
> 
> I find these words strange coming from the player who made it his
> mission to unseat Rule 1.

That's the difference between safety for the sake of continuity and safety
for the sake of protecting a subset of players, not a subset of the rules.
I don't see why any one group of players should be privileged for all time
for perpetrating one scam - get the win and you get a cloak (or badge), a
title, and a grapefruit, but that means squat in terms of playing the next
cycle.
> 
> > I know that given enough pressure anything can be accomplished, but
> > we should at least do something to create the moral precedent that
> > changing the past is something which should only be done in the most
> > restricted of circumstances, and only when events require it to
> > maintain a semblance of normality.
> 
> Well, that is kind of what Rule 103 does.
Yes, but it is circumvented so easily, isn't it?
> 
> At the moment I can recall only one other time that a retroactive rule
> was created. That was done to avoid having to harf the incredibly
> messed-up game state that would ensued from accepting the verdict of
> CFJ 340. There are probably few other cases, and I would be willing to
> bet that in each one the main motivation was trying to save a
> messed-up game state.

In which case, my forthcoming amendment should not prohibit the kind of
rare retroactive changes we have to make, while making other, less
beneficial ones, harder to enable.
> You should not be too worried, is what I am saying. We do not sidestep
> the retroactivity ban lightly.
The fact that it is sidestepped at all is still worrying, which is why I'm
looking for some slightly better restrictions.
- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:34:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

>> You should not be too worried, is what I am saying. We do not sidestep
>> the retroactivity ban lightly.
> 
> The fact that it is sidestepped at all is still worrying, which is
> why I'm looking for some slightly better restrictions.

As the infrequent crisis shows us, it is occasionally important to be
able to sidestep retroactivity.

And true, it can be sidestepped by an appropriately worded rule change
that has sufficient support (e.g., a proposal with enough votes). But
an "appropriately worded rule change that has sufficient support" can
also repeal all existing rules and replace them with the rules for
Monopoly. Or do just about anything else. This is the whole point of
Nomic, really.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:35:32 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 355 Hearing start

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

<from Internomic>
> A proposal to create a new rule with the following text:
> 
> 
> "
> I.
> A new nomic called 'PlayNomic' is hereby created. PlayNomic is a
> non-voting member of Internomic. Its initial ruleset is as follows:

<charter snipped>
Is anyone here going to play PlayNomic?

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:40:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2489

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > The Game State Harfer, as a public action, may
> > make changes to the rules and the game state
> > by unambiguously describing the change(s) to
> > be made.  The changes are applied at the time
> > of the action.
> > 
> > This rule has precedence over all rules, except
> > that it defers to rule 101.
> > 
> > {{Malenkai is appointed to the office of Game State
> > Harfer.}}
> > "
> 
> "What?"
> Why would anyone besides Malenkai desire this?  Admittedly Malenkai
> can probably be trusted, but remember the fuss over Vulcan?
> 

It's called voting a dictator into power. It has nothing to do with
trusting Malenkai. Malenkai can be trusted to follow the rules, and
during the Vulcan Dictatorship he also followed the rules.
What scams can be perpetrated with such a rule, would be quite legal

If acka votes for this, then acka deserves this!

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:47:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> >As it is, currently it may be possible to create effectively unlimited
> >wealth.  Any time that happens, a game with only a single "currency" goes
> >down the tubes.  A game with multiple distinct ways of playing can block
> >the problem off, after some minor haemhorraging, and continue.
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy that.  In the first place, we have fail-safe rules that
> are independant of any kind of currency system.  We are now seeing them
> exercised for the first time.  ( Cool! :-)  In the second place, I don't
> see how an infinite amount of unified currency would be any worse than an
> infinite amount of A$.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
I don't see why a unified currency need to be infinite
A finite supply if preferable, though it doens't need to be a constant, it
can itself be affected by the game state.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:40:56 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
  Thin Man wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't buy that.  In the first place, we have fail-safe rules that
> > are independant of any kind of currency system.  We are now seeing them
> > exercised for the first time.  ( Cool! :-)  In the second place, I don't
> > see how an infinite amount of unified currency would be any worse than an
> > infinite amount of A$.
> I don't see why a unified currency need to be infinite
> A finite supply if preferable, though it doens't need to be a constant, it
> can itself be affected by the game state.

This wasn't actually the point of what ThinMan was trying to say.  The
problem I saw with infinite currency was not in it being possible to
create it all the time, but rather with loopholes enabling its effective
creation.  For example, the trinket crisis left us a loophole which
enables effective creation of infinite Ackadollars, even though there are
supposed to be finite limits.
HTH.
- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:45:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Amber Banananananana

I hereby exercise my right to purchase an Amber Banana from Alfvaen for
A$10 on two distinct occasions:

1. For being the author of Proposal 2478 (2+4+7+8=21)
2. For being the author of Proposal 2487 (2+4+8+7=21)

This costs me A$20.

- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:25:48 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

Slakko wrote,

>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.

It was the best of a collection of rotten alternative interpretations.
"Entity" may or may not be a subclass of "object."  There are certainly
objects which are not entities; to wit: Pumpkin Patch Nomic.  The word
"object" is not overloaded by the Ackanomic rules as "entity" is.

ThinMan
Justice

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:39:17 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Slakko wrote,
> 
> >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.
> 
> It was the best of a collection of rotten alternative interpretations.
> "Entity" may or may not be a subclass of "object."  There are certainly
> objects which are not entities; to wit: Pumpkin Patch Nomic.  The word
> "object" is not overloaded by the Ackanomic rules as "entity" is.

How come people can gain an object, and yet not still possess it, despite
there being no rule or game action which deprived them of it.
(In other words, how did the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that an
object is not something which is possessed, if they have interpreted a win
as an object, but a win has been stated to be "gained".)

Just trying to understand the workings of the Supreme Court in order that
I might know better in future when an appeal will be worthwhile.
- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:41:16 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestions

>I suggest Vulcan accept the Frobnotzer from Pumpkin Patch Nomic.
>I approve of this suggestion.

I also approve of this suggestion.

ThinMan
Vulcan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:08:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

> How come people can gain an object, and yet not still possess it,
> despite there being no rule or game action which deprived them of
> it.  (In other words, how did the Supreme Court come to the
> conclusion that an object is not something which is possessed, if
> they have interpreted a win as an object, but a win has been stated
> to be "gained".)

Well, if you're playing a game, isn't winning usually an object?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Seriously, English recognizes "object" as being capable of referring
to abstractions. Just because something is an object doesn't have to
mean that it is a thing which you can touch. Also, consider the
sentence "Alfvaen and Malenkai have gained their respective wins, and
no one can take those wins away from them."

I believe there is also precedent for that rule applying to similar
situations in the past, but I don't recall any details (and right now
I've got a million better things to do than go slog through the
archives again).

If you find the interpretation that allows Rule 405 to be applied in
this situation to be too much of a stretch, then I'm curious as to
what verdict you would have considered preferable.

(And BTW, if you're thinking that a better decision might have been
your suggestion in the appeal that the rule just be ignored because it
is ambiguous: That's not an option. It would make my job as a Justice
a hell of a lot easier if it was. Actually, it would make my job
trivial - in actuality *every* rule is ambiguous, simply because it is
written in English, which is hardly an umambiguous language. But
usually we can more-or-less agree that one interpretation is better
than another. And if a single best interpretation can be found for a
rule, then that is taken as its meaning, no matter how poorly it is
written. If no one best interpretation can be found for a rule, then
it is a valid candidate for a Paradox Win.)
 
> Just trying to understand the workings of the Supreme Court in order
> that I might know better in future when an appeal will be
> worthwhile.

Ha. "Good luck."

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:12:32 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestions

> > I suggest Vulcan accept the Frobnotzer from Pumpkin Patch Nomic.
> > I approve of this suggestion.
> > 
> > /dev/joe
> 
> On the off chance that Malenkai really is trying to give us a Frobnotzer,
> I approve as well.
> 
> I also suggest that Vulcan accept what I think Malenkai is actually
> offering us, which is a Secret Lab.  I also happen to approve of this
> suggestion.
> 
>                                   - Vynd

Oh, oops. :-)
OK, I approve Vynd's suggestion too.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:09:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 355 Hearing start

> > A new nomic called 'PlayNomic' is hereby created. PlayNomic is a
> > non-voting member of Internomic. Its initial ruleset is as follows:
> 
> <charter snipped>
> Is anyone here going to play PlayNomic?

  Not I.  And I doubt many others will, either.

___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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:18:38 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Well, if you're playing a game, isn't winning usually an object?

That's cause people can't tell object from objective these days. 
*sigh*

>  
> > Just trying to understand the workings of the Supreme Court in order
> > that I might know better in future when an appeal will be
> > worthwhile.
> 
> Ha. "Good luck."
So basically what you are saying, as a Justice, is that Justice is so
irregular it is beyond comprehension?  That sure inspires confidence.
:-)

- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:46:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

>> Well, if you're playing a game, isn't winning usually an object?
> 
> That's cause people can't tell object from objective these days. 
> *sigh*

Pardon? Have you never heard the phrase "The object of the game is to
win!"? This is not a *recent* idiom.

In any case, my dictionary has these as a few of the many definitions
of object: "anything that may be apprehended intellectually: 'objects
of thought'.... a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action
is directed: 'an object of medical investigation'.... the end toward
which effort is directed; goal; purpose: 'Investigation of business
prospects is the object of his trip to London'."

(It was of course the first definition quoted that I had in mind when
considering Rule 405's applicability, but the wordplay possibility had
occurred to me as well.)

>>> Just trying to understand the workings of the Supreme Court in order
>>> that I might know better in future when an appeal will be
>>> worthwhile.
>> 
>> Ha. "Good luck."
> So basically what you are saying, as a Justice, is that Justice is so
> irregular it is beyond comprehension?  That sure inspires confidence.
> :-)

"Hey there, watch it, sonny. I didn't work my fingers to the bone to
get this Bronze Torch just to have newbies freely cast aspersions in
my general direction."

No, what I was saying that even my closest friends don't understand
me, and I'm only half the picture.

Seriously, though, if you want to understand "the workings of the
Supreme Court", then I would suggest you read the CFJ archives. (Also
a good place to get a handle on a lot of the currently accepted game
custom.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:54:36 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> Well, if you're playing a game, isn't winning usually an object?
> > 
> > That's cause people can't tell object from objective these days. 
> > *sigh*
> 
> Pardon? Have you never heard the phrase "The object of the game is to
> win!"? This is not a *recent* idiom.

Apologies.  I will orient myself correctly in future.

> >> Ha. "Good luck."
> > So basically what you are saying, as a Justice, is that Justice is so
> > irregular it is beyond comprehension?  That sure inspires confidence.
> > :-)
> 
> "Hey there, watch it, sonny. I didn't work my fingers to the bone to
> get this Bronze Torch just to have newbies freely cast aspersions in
> my general direction."
Would those fingers be COBOL fingers? (Maybe the Jargon File should become
literature).

Nothing general about it.  I thought I was being specific :-)
> No, what I was saying that even my closest friends don't understand
> me, and I'm only half the picture.
> 
> Seriously, though, if you want to understand "the workings of the
> Supreme Court", then I would suggest you read the CFJ archives. (Also
> a good place to get a handle on a lot of the currently accepted game
> custom.)

I've started on that.  I haven't got a fortnight free any time soon. :-(

- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:14:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

> > Well, if you're playing a game, isn't winning usually an object?
> 
> That's cause people can't tell object from objective these days. 
> *sigh*

  Yeah, they need to be more objective about the object of winning
win objects.  :O)

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit rec.games.video.classic and find out about Pac-Man's contemporaries!
If man had been meant to fly, he would have invented airplanes.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:14:35 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > > While this may well be correct (who am I to argue with the great
> > > Malenkai), it is nonetheless very worrying.  Apparently we are
> > > allowed to "correct" the past without any worries.  How would you
> > > like it if, 2 years later, enough players are willing to "correct"
> > > the past so that the first 15 cycles didn't happen?  That the game
> > > effectively started last Tuesday or something?  I find that a
> > > ruleset which permits that is not a ruleset with much safety built
> > > in.
> > 
> > Welcome to nomic. Hardly anything is safe in this game; that's the point.

Indeed, there is nothing stopping you from submitting a proposal that
would create a rule that would cause the Declaration of Crisis to never
have occured.  Me, I've always wondered what would happen if I managed to
get a proposal passed that retroactively caused me to never have joined
the game...

> > 
> > I find these words strange coming from the player who made it his
> > mission to unseat Rule 1.
> 
> That's the difference between safety for the sake of continuity and safety
> for the sake of protecting a subset of players, not a subset of the rules.
> I don't see why any one group of players should be privileged for all time
> for perpetrating one scam - get the win and you get a cloak (or badge), a
> title, and a grapefruit, but that means squat in terms of playing the next
> cycle.
> > 

Heh, Rule 1 hasn't protected us Evil Overlord types from anything.  It was
created to try and leave some kind of "we were here" stamp on the Rules,
and to see if we could create a rule that couldn't be altered.  Me, I
never thought it would work. :)  You are right that this situation is
different though.

> > > I know that given enough pressure anything can be accomplished, but
> > > we should at least do something to create the moral precedent that
> > > changing the past is something which should only be done in the most
> > > restricted of circumstances, and only when events require it to
> > > maintain a semblance of normality.
> > 
> > Well, that is kind of what Rule 103 does.
> Yes, but it is circumvented so easily, isn't it?
> > 

I really don't see what the fuss is all about here.  Is there any real
disagreement that things need to be fixed?  Is this really all about the
money you're going to lose or something?  If not, why all the fuss about
this retroactive rule?  Yes, it goes against Rule 103, but it's necessary
if we want to be able to go on with any semblance of normalacy.  So far as
easy to circumvent goes, says who?  Its as hard to circumvent as anything
in the rules save Rules 102 and 101, and of course good old Rule 1.  Nomic
is inherently a game of change and circumvention.

Creating a "moral precedent" probably is the only way to stop people from
trying to write retroactive rules and what have you.  But you can't
legislate morality, that's somthing that has to come from those of us who
are playing, from the community (ugh, getting kind of touchy feely here).
And you can argue until your blue in the face but I don't see anything
"wrong" with what Alfvaen has proposed, and aparently neither do some
other people.  You, on the other hand, seem to be the only one who is
concerned about the circumvention of Rule 103.  This is not some sort of
trivial, "lets be retroactive on a whim" proposal we're talking about
here, but something crucial to keeping the game playable.  If we were
talking about some sort of trivial proposal, then I would come down just
as hard as you have, and I hope others would as well.  Retroactivity is
not something to be used lightly, but I must say that in my experience, it
hasn't been.  In my entire time in Acka, this is the first time I have
even SEEN a proposed rule or rule change that would have retroactive
effects.  By it's mere presence, Rule 103 has discouraged any attempts at
retroactivity.  So yes, its possible tog et around Rule 103, but it is not
as easy or as commonplace as you seem to believe, and I don't think we
need to worry about it.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:51:58 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> Heh, Rule 1 hasn't protected us Evil Overlord types from anything.  It was
> created to try and leave some kind of "we were here" stamp on the Rules,
> and to see if we could create a rule that couldn't be altered.  Me, I
> never thought it would work. :)  You are right that this situation is
> different though.

Note to others: The "we were here" stamp on the rules is still there
regardless of what happened with the anti-Vulcan proposals.  It's just
been moved if they work.  I _like_ the idea of a "we were here" stamp.
That's why I am against _unnecessary_ retrospectivity.  Alfvaen's is
necessary.
> 
> Creating a "moral precedent" probably is the only way to stop people from
> trying to write retroactive rules and what have you.  But you can't
> legislate morality, that's somthing that has to come from those of us who
> are playing, from the community (ugh, getting kind of touchy feely here).
> And you can argue until your blue in the face but I don't see anything
> "wrong" with what Alfvaen has proposed, and aparently neither do some
> other people.

You must be mistaken.  I have never argued there was anything wrong with
Alfvaen's Resolution Document.  I just don't want retrospectivity to
become a regular occurrence.  It does have its place when necessary, and I
would never want to eliminate that.

>  You, on the other hand, seem to be the only one who is
> concerned about the circumvention of Rule 103.  This is not some sort of
> trivial, "lets be retroactive on a whim" proposal we're talking about
> here, but something crucial to keeping the game playable.  

Exactly.  The one occasion where retrospectivity, in my opinion, is
justified.  Rule 103 doesn't do that, though.  It can be easily
circumvented in other circumstances.  That's my main concern, not what's
happening with the CRD.

> If we were
> talking about some sort of trivial proposal, then I would come down just
> as hard as you have, and I hope others would as well.  Retroactivity is
> not something to be used lightly, but I must say that in my experience, it
> hasn't been.  In my entire time in Acka, this is the first time I have
> even SEEN a proposed rule or rule change that would have retroactive
> effects.  By it's mere presence, Rule 103 has discouraged any attempts at
> retroactivity.  So yes, its possible tog et around Rule 103, but it is not
> as easy or as commonplace as you seem to believe, and I don't think we
> need to worry about it.

Actually, if you'll note, I have not ever actually argued that what
Alfvaen is doing in his document is wrong.  I have tried (unsuccessfully)
to argue that the document is flawed, but that's a different matter.  I
just found it annoying that there is a rule which tries to ban
retrospectivity when there is no real need for it, because it creates an
impression which is distinct from the reality.  It seems kind of
misleading.

I'm quite happy for this to retrospectively modify the rules and
gamestate. I just want to make sure that people aren't using
retrospectivity all that often, only when necessary.  (That's why one of
my new proposals is going to try to limit the length that retrospectivity
can apply to - to basically limit it to clearing up Crises).  That isn't
designed to affect today's opinions, because I can clearly see that
today's player list is against it.  

We are actually arguing the same side - you just haven't noticed that what
I'm saying is what you're thinking (you know what you're thinking - you
just misinterp.ed what I'm saying).

If anyone has obtained the impression that I don't want Alfvaen's
Resolution Document to succeed, then I just ask you one question:
Why haven't I challenged it yet?
- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:30:27 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Application

I apply to the Senate to become an Expert with the following title:

Expert in Unwinning

I think that the events of the last three days speak for themselves on
this matter.
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:52:01 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Guarded

If Proposal 2475 is not currently Guarded, then as an action I pay the
appropriate number of A$ in order to make Proposal 2475 Guarded.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:19:46 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Actions

I hereby publish the following statement as an article of The Infrequent
Ackan (being part of Volume 1, Issue 4):

This statement is false, and knowable, and can be determined as being
either true or false, but not both.

I hereby make a public request for the most recent statement published in
The Infrequent Ackan to be corrected.

As the owner of The Infrequent Ackan, I refuse to issue a correction for
the statement in The Infrequent Ackan for which a public request for
correction was most recently issued. 

- -- 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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:34:21 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Retraction

I have submitted a CFJ to Malenkai.
One second after it is published, I retract it.

Yours,
Slakko

Sorry about the fuss.

- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:52:50 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Retraction

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> I have submitted a CFJ to Malenkai.
> One second after it is published, I retract it.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> 
> Sorry about the fuss.

I'm about to submit another CFJ to Malenkai.

In order to make this clear, the above statement only retracts the next
CFJ issued by Malenkai that was authored by Slakko.  No other CFJs are
affected.

- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:23:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Retraction

> > Sorry about the fuss.
> 
> I'm about to submit another CFJ to Malenkai.
> 
> In order to make this clear, the above statement only retracts the next
> CFJ issued by Malenkai that was authored by Slakko.  No other CFJs are
> affected.

For chrissakes, would you mind not doing this in the future?

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:28:13 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Retraction

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > > Sorry about the fuss.
> > 
> > I'm about to submit another CFJ to Malenkai.
> > 
> > In order to make this clear, the above statement only retracts the next
> > CFJ issued by Malenkai that was authored by Slakko.  No other CFJs are
> > affected.
> 
> For chrissakes, would you mind not doing this in the future?

I don't intend to.  I intended to get this right first off.  Instead,
what I thought was a Paradox Win collapsed (I hadn't checked enough back
CFJs), then I realised that there might be another one, then I realised
that it wouldn't fly, so I converted it into an ordinary CFJ which you now
have in your hands.

The last thing I wanted was for me to spot the paradox, start to get it
out, then fall at the last hurdle because someone else got the CFJ in
first.  

- --
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: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:03:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Application

Slakko wrote:
> I apply to the Senate to become an Expert with the following title:
> 
> Expert in Unwinning

I vote in favor of the senate approving this application.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 19:20:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

> I'm quite happy for this to retrospectively modify the rules and
> gamestate. I just want to make sure that people aren't using
> retrospectivity all that often, only when necessary.  (That's why one of
> my new proposals is going to try to limit the length that retrospectivity
> can apply to - to basically limit it to clearing up Crises). 

That would be proposal 2492, a proposal I admit that I do not
understand at all. Since you all *love* my long pseudo-essays,
here goes :-)

*** no treasure clues beyond this point ***

If this proposal is accepted, the first line of any CRD to patch
an old game state would be:  "Repeal rule 0".  The next line  
would be "This rule has precedence over rule 103".  What's the point?

The author argues how easy it is to circumvent rule 103, (and for some
reason that is a bad thing if it is done for some time greater than
15 days), yet the proposal only adds another rule to the list of rules
to be circumvented in that case.

The main effect rule 0 *would* have, if created, would be to make the
game even harder on the officers, by nuking the pragmatism clause in
rule 713.  The author does not address this effect in eir comments in
the proposal.  If the author wants that, e should be explicit and amend
rule 713 as well, rather than let it hang out there.  If this proposal
is accepted, *I'm* not going to be the officer to spend a weekend harfing
a game state because a year-old error is discovered.  I've got better
things to do :-)

Finally, lets say the rule were somehow constructed to allow retroactivity
to be impossible (I believe this would take doing what rule 1 attempted to
do), after 15 days.  Why is this a good thing?

The author in eir comments mentions the Speaker discovering a crisis 
within 3 days.  That assumption appears rather arbitrary.  It seems to
me a 10 or even 100 day old crisis could be disovered (e.g., the 
misinterpretation of the old vacation rule which I discovered about
3 months or so after the fact; the potential effect being that 3 month
old proposals which we assumed passed may have actually failed. (these
numbers are from the top of my head, perhaps the Historian knows).  
/dev/joe and I spent an entire evening at the time slogging though 
old e-mails to see what happened.  Hardly fun.).  Hence the 
pragmatism clause and crisis resolution rule.

Finally, let me say that I agree with the author on this issue 
philosophically (assuming my reading is correct), previous comments
notwithstanding.  I was extremely loathe to declare the State of
Crisis even in this case; it absolutely turns my stomach to patch
a nomic game state retoractively, even if it is 10 seconds in the 
past, no matter *how* ugly it is, to nuke a mistake or scam without
letting it run its course.  It also sets a very poor precedent. 
Ok, every time there is a problem, bring out the ol' Crisis 
Resoultion?  I think the game will lose some of its edge if that 
attitude becomes current.  As long as I am Speaker, I intend
to think even longer and harder about using this tool, unless 
Alfvaen throws virtual tomatoes at me :)

I consider myself a pure nomic player, whatever that means, thus 
the rules have to be followed, no handwaving allowed.  However, I
also consider the players people with lives (myself included), who
would rather play a game than deal with harfing the effects of a
past error or the over-doing it that this scam created.  Had the
after effects been done in moderation, and had they been available to
all without undue hardship on the officers, I would not have declared
the State of Crisis.  Most likely, the only time I will *ever* declare
an SoC is because of too much unfun *work*.

Therein lies the compromise, always follow the rules, but keep the
game playable.  To achieve such a compromise, one needs the 
retroactivity patch (or a more creative yet to be discovered
solution).  To go either way on this issue would leave some players
out -- handwaving problems away may scare away the "purists", whilst
anal rule following with no recourse if a 100 day old problem is 
discovered will bore the "gamers" (and I don't mean to overgeneralise 
or stereotype, but to do otherwise would lead to a 100 page book :-).
So I view the retroactivity thing is legalized handwaving; a compromise,
prolly more of a compromise for the "purists".

So, at first I thought proposal 2492 was throwing the baby out with
the bathwater, but now I feel its keeping the bathwater and throwing
out the baby :-).

Malenkai

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #411
*******************************