Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #415
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, December 13 1997      Volume 02 : Number 415

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:40:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Once more

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >"6. A player may not be a member of more than three Churches at the same
> >time."
> <sigh> you're right.  I hearby announce my intent not to found any of
> those.  Oh well.

I don't thinkg there is any limit on intent, you just won't be able to
carry out all of your intents.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:43:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Towsner's Clock

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 
> And as Malenkai noted, none of those transfers of the secret lab worked
> because the orgs did not have trade licenses; Towsner's first org has
> a Secret Lab now and will have the gadget he named (I think a scroll of
> crumble) in 3 days.  Vulcan noticed this scam recently, and saw that the
> necessity of the trade license would mean that gadgets could be made for
> A$50 a piece, which is surely a scam but not a vicious or game-breaking
> one.  Now that the scam is out in the open we will have to close it. :-\
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

And I was going to quote that scam to get votes for upcoming proposals...

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:51:43 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Once more

>I don't thinkg there is any limit on intent, you just won't be able to
>carry out all of your intents.
	I realize.  I'm just withdrawing my intents.  Otherwise I can
imagine a group of people making four of them legal churches, and then
filing a CFCJ at me.

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 21:46:20 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

A$ can be given as gift entities.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> 	One question.  If an organization can't accept trades without a
> trade license, how does it get money to buy a trade license?
> 
> - --
> 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, 13 Dec 1997 21:53:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

The current structure still leaves a lot to be desired, and with a little
more investment, and a little more time, that Henry's scam could have been
easily perpetrated. The fact that it didn't quite work the way he did it,
doesn't indicate that there is no bug in those rules. They are full of
bugs. The problem is not so much ferreting out the bugs, as deciding where
we want those rule to go. I think single player organizations have to go,
or at least be restricted. I think there should limits on membership,
reasonable limits. Both the Party and the Church limits are reasonable.

And my least popular opinion is that I'd rather see generic Organizations
either go, or be severly restricted as well.

Niccolo Flychuck
Expert on Organizations and Institutions, the latter of which no longer
exists, the former quickly going to the canines of the Wilds of Ackanomia

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Despite the current crop of bugs, the org rules are a lot better
> > than they used to be when we first re-orged to the current structure.
> 
> ROTFL!
> 
> Malenkai
> anticipating alot of work in the near future
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:59:29 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I never give up!

> > I intend to found the church YAT#1
> > I intend to found the church YAT#2
> > I intend to found the church YAT#3
> 
> I join these 3 churches.
> 
> Malenkai

So do I.

The Gingham Wearer

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:05:49 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I never give up!

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > > I intend to found the church YAT#1
> > > I intend to found the church YAT#2
> > > I intend to found the church YAT#3
> > 
> > I join these 3 churches.
> > 
> > Malenkai
> 
> So do I.
> 
I join church YAT#1 and church YAT#2.

They are now churches.
- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 15:06:20 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 485 Verdict

> > We're all out to get you Slakko.  Soon you will see the light, and become
> > one of us.  In the meantime, however, do keep in mind that most of the
> > activity in Acka does tend to happen during daylight hours in the U.S.  At
> > the moment, I'm not sure if anyone except you and Nicolo live outside
> > North America, although there have certainly been plenty of Acka players
> > from Great Britain.
> 
> Kelly Kelly is from Australia, if you haven't noticed the .au stuck on the
> end of eir email.  In fact, even if you have. :-)
> Tom Walmsley is @lineone.net, an ISP owned by British Telecom.  He's
> probably British.
> --
> Duncan "Aussie living in Britain" Richer aka
> Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

Of couse, my apologies to my mentee, K 2.  You were talking about a
federal system in Australia not long ago and since I knew there was a
player from Australia around, I got kinda confused...  Apologies also for
not being able to recognize the nationalities of everyone's ISPs, I must
really be slipping. :)

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:10:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

> The current structure still leaves a lot to be desired, and with a little
> more investment, and a little more time, that Henry's scam could have been
> easily perpetrated. The fact that it didn't quite work the way he did it,
> doesn't indicate that there is no bug in those rules. They are full of
> bugs. The problem is not so much ferreting out the bugs, as deciding where
> we want those rule to go. I think single player organizations have to go,
> or at least be restricted. I think there should limits on membership,
> reasonable limits. Both the Party and the Church limits are reasonable.
> 
> And my least popular opinion is that I'd rather see generic Organizations
> either go, or be severly restricted as well.

The proposal to make it cost A$50 to start an organization should severely
hamper scams of this forms; I have already submitted a proposal to amend
the Secret Lab so that the one-per-month restriction is based on the Lab,
not the Org.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:19:28 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I never give up!

>I join church YAT#1 and church YAT#2.
>
>They are now churches.
	Cool.  Now all I need is A$50.  (Slakko, when I send you mail I get
550:Administrative prohibition.  A couple places don't accept earthlink
mail because there used to be a spoofing problem.  Could that be it?)

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 15:21:36 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

>The proposal to make it cost A$50 to start an organization should severely
>hamper scams of this forms; I have already submitted a proposal to amend
>the Secret Lab so that the one-per-month restriction is based on the Lab,
>not the Org.

	First, basing it on the lab doesn't solve the general problem.
Malekai clearly has something up his sleeve, and I see at least two more
scams coming up shortly.  The whole structure needs to be redone.
	Second, how does the A$50 limit help?  Once you create the org,
can't you just order the org to give back the money?

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 15:23:12 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 486 Verdict

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > CFJ 486 has been judged INVALID.
> 
> I hereby appeal this CFJ to the Supreme Court.
> 
> > Statement:
> > 
> > The Supreme Court can never issue a ruling other than UNDECIDED on a
> > CFCJ that "Slakko has committed a Crime", provided that Slakko does not
> > commit any Crimes after the submission of this CFJ.
> > 
> > The Gingham Wearer's Reasoning:
> > 
> > Rule 710 states:
> > 
> > "2) A CFCJ will be clearly labelled as such, to distinguish it from an
> > ordinary CFJ. "
> > 
> > Hence the phrase this CFJ in the statement cannot be referring to the
> > CFCJ stating that, "Slakko has committed a Crime", and it is unclear to
> > what it is referring.
> > 
> 
> Appellant Reasoning:
> 
> It is obvious that the phrase "this CFJ" in the statement is the CFJ
> referring to itself.  As The Gingham Wearer has stated, it cannot be
> referring to the CFCJ.  There is therefore only one possible
> interpretation - that it is referring to itself.
> The finding of INVALID is therefore erroneous.
> 

I would have to agree that this CFJ should not have been judged INVALID.
I had meant to comment on it earlier, and now that it is headed for the
Supreme Court I will do so.

CFJs that try and describe the legality of events in the future are a
sticky err, is the word wicket (I don't play much croquet)?  One way to
judge them is to look at the rules as they stand, assume they are enver
changed, and deliver a judgement accordingly.  The rules do, however,
contain rules which make it possible to change the rules.  If one bases
their judgement on this fact, the judgement on a CFJ will often be very
different than in the first case I mentioned.

When I have had to judge CFJs about the possibility of future actions,
such as this one, I have used the second approach I described above.  In
this case, it would lead to a judgement of FALSE.  We don't know what the
rules will be like in a year, or even next week.  The UNDECIDED verdict
might be eliminated from the rules entirely.  This is unlikely, but it
COULD occur, so it is FALSE to say that the Supreme Court could NEVER
deliver a verdict other than undecided etc.

Is this the correct way to deal with this kind of CFJ?  I can't say that I
know for sure.  Certainly it is the method that makes the most sense to
me, but I am bringing the issue up now because I am wondering what other
people think.  Obviously, the Supreme Court's opinion on this matter is
the one that really counts.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:29:06 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> 	One question.  If an organization can't accept trades without a
> trade license, how does it get money to buy a trade license?
> 
> --
> Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio
> 
> -Henry Towsner

This one used to bother me as well. :)  A$ are gift entities, they don't
have to be accepted by the person or thing they are being transfered to.
Likewise trinkets, which is why Vulcan owns a whole bunch of hastily
described negatively valued trinkets right now. :)

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:30:49 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 486 Verdict

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> > 
> > > CFJ 486 has been judged INVALID.
> > 
> > I hereby appeal this CFJ to the Supreme Court.
> > 
> > > Statement:
> > > 
> > > The Supreme Court can never issue a ruling other than UNDECIDED on a
> > > CFCJ that "Slakko has committed a Crime", provided that Slakko does not
> > > commit any Crimes after the submission of this CFJ.
> > > 
> > > The Gingham Wearer's Reasoning:
> > > 
> > > Rule 710 states:
> > > 
> > > "2) A CFCJ will be clearly labelled as such, to distinguish it from an
> > > ordinary CFJ. "
> > > 
> > > Hence the phrase this CFJ in the statement cannot be referring to the
> > > CFCJ stating that, "Slakko has committed a Crime", and it is unclear to
> > > what it is referring.
> > > 
> > 
> > Appellant Reasoning:
> > 
> > It is obvious that the phrase "this CFJ" in the statement is the CFJ
> > referring to itself.  As The Gingham Wearer has stated, it cannot be
> > referring to the CFCJ.  There is therefore only one possible
> > interpretation - that it is referring to itself.
> > The finding of INVALID is therefore erroneous.
> > 
> 
> I would have to agree that this CFJ should not have been judged INVALID.
> I had meant to comment on it earlier, and now that it is headed for the
> Supreme Court I will do so.
> 
> CFJs that try and describe the legality of events in the future are a
> sticky err, is the word wicket (I don't play much croquet)?  One way to
> judge them is to look at the rules as they stand, assume they are enver
> changed, and deliver a judgement accordingly.  The rules do, however,
> contain rules which make it possible to change the rules.  If one bases
> their judgement on this fact, the judgement on a CFJ will often be very
> different than in the first case I mentioned.
> 
> When I have had to judge CFJs about the possibility of future actions,
> such as this one, I have used the second approach I described above.  In
> this case, it would lead to a judgement of FALSE.  We don't know what the
> rules will be like in a year, or even next week.  The UNDECIDED verdict
> might be eliminated from the rules entirely.  This is unlikely, but it
> COULD occur, so it is FALSE to say that the Supreme Court could NEVER
> deliver a verdict other than undecided etc.
> 
> Is this the correct way to deal with this kind of CFJ?  I can't say that I
> know for sure.  Certainly it is the method that makes the most sense to
> me, but I am bringing the issue up now because I am wondering what other
> people think.  Obviously, the Supreme Court's opinion on this matter is
> the one that really counts.

They'll probably agree with you, which means that I don't get to find out
what I want to.  :-(
What I need to know is whether a CFCJ on me creates an infinite loop of
Supreme Court appeals.

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 20:35:09 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Action

I hereby give A$50 to the Church YAT#1.

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, 13 Dec 1997 15:39:50 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Slakko wrote:
> 
> >So what's the point of having Rule 103 now, if anything stronger than it
> >will be repealed in a crisis, and anything as weak as it gets overruled in
> >a crisis?  It appears to be a derelict rule.
> 
> Might the value of R103 be that it prevents poorly written ordinary rules
> from having unintentional retroactive effects?
> 
> -mr cwm

This is certainly one of its most important functions.  Also, as I've said
earlier, I think that the presence of this rule makes it clear that
retroactive effects are frowned upon, and is ne of the reasons why they
are almost never attempted (I count one try in the last 9 months).

Slakko seems to want a stronger version of Rule 103.  He says that he is
worried about people using retroactivity to often.  Frankly, I think his
fears are groundless.  I see no indication that people are going to try
and do all kinds of retroactive shennanigans all of the sudden, when for
all of Acka's history there has been no such inclination.

The system we have now seems to work very well indeed.  I have always
thought that Acka's methods of dealing with undiscovered errors has
actually been one of its better constructed parts.  I don't think the
changes Slakko has been pushing for are necessary or desireable.  If it
ain't broke, don't fix it.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:47:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC

Anybody who wants to talk about the current state of the game is welcome to
join me on Ackanomic IRC.

Some of the newer players may be unaware that Acka has its own private,
rarely-used IRC server.  Point your IRC client at wilma.che.utexas.edu
port 9942, and join channel #ackanomic.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:55:09 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

YAT#1, a church consisting of else...if as founder, with Slakko, The
Gingham Wearer, and Malenkai, as followers, is now created.  It has no
public Church Dogma.

YAT#2, a church consisting of else...if as founder, with Slakko, The
Gingham Wearer, and Malenkai, as followers, is now created.  It has no
public Church Dogma.

>I hereby give A$50 to the Church YAT#1.
	Not what I intended, but never mind.  I transfer A$50 from YAT#1 to
Shell#1.  I suggest that Shell#1 purchase a trade license.  I approve this
suggestion.
I suggest that Shell#1 transfer its Secret Laboratory to YAT#1.
I approve this suggestion.
I order YAT#1 to use its Secret Laboratory to make an Evil Ballot Stuffer.
I order YAT#1 to give its Secret Laboratory to YAT#2
I order YAT#2 to recieve a Secret Laboratory from YAT#1
I order YAT#2 to use its Secret Laboratory to make a Gimme Shelter.
I excommunicate The Gingham Wearer from YAT#1 (nothing personal, I just
need to make it a cult temporarily.)
Slakko, please join YAT#3, and we'll do it again:)

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 15:59:24 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Intent

I intend to found YAT#4

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 21:01:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> YAT#1, a church consisting of else...if as founder, with Slakko, The
> Gingham Wearer, and Malenkai, as followers, is now created.  It has no
> public Church Dogma.
> 
> YAT#2, a church consisting of else...if as founder, with Slakko, The
> Gingham Wearer, and Malenkai, as followers, is now created.  It has no
> public Church Dogma.
> 
> >I hereby give A$50 to the Church YAT#1.
> 	Not what I intended, but never mind.  I transfer A$50 from YAT#1 to
> Shell#1.  I suggest that Shell#1 purchase a trade license.  I approve this
> suggestion.
> I suggest that Shell#1 transfer its Secret Laboratory to YAT#1.
> I approve this suggestion.
> I order YAT#1 to use its Secret Laboratory to make an Evil Ballot Stuffer.
> I order YAT#1 to give its Secret Laboratory to YAT#2
> I order YAT#2 to recieve a Secret Laboratory from YAT#1
> I order YAT#2 to use its Secret Laboratory to make a Gimme Shelter.
> I excommunicate The Gingham Wearer from YAT#1 (nothing personal, I just
> need to make it a cult temporarily.)
> Slakko, please join YAT#3, and we'll do it again:)

I hereby join YAT#3.
I hereby leave YAT#1
- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 16:15:59 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

>I hereby join YAT#3.
>I hereby leave YAT#1
YAT#3 has been founded with else...if as founder, and Malenkai, The Gingham
Wearer, and Slakko as members.  It has no public Church Dogma
I order YAT#2 to trasfer its Secret Laboratory to YAT#3.
I order YAT#3 to make a Vending Machine with its Secret Laboratory
I excommunicate Malenkai from YAT#2 (again, nothing personal, I'm just
rotating who I excommunicate)
I intend to found the church YAT#4.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
Wearer are invited to join.
I intend to found the church YAT#5.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
Wearer are invited to join.
I intend to found the church YAT#6.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
Wearer are invited to join.
I intend to found the church YAT#7.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
Wearer are invited to join.
I intend to found the church YAT#8.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
Wearer are invited to join.

If Malekai and The Gingham Wearer would kindly join those five, and Slakko,
would you please join YAT#4, we can do this again.

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 16:16:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 487 Verdict

CFJ 487 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 487
  Subject: Enacting rules
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-13 10:08
    Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 97-12-13 10:25)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Enactment of a rule covering an aspect of the game where previous game
custom exists does not overrule that game custom when a CFJ is made
pertaining to that aspect of the game.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Rule 215 states:
When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in
question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game
custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision. 

This is the last sentence of Rule 215, and hence any statements within it
override all prior statements in Rule 215, as there is no conflict
determination mechanism in Rule 215.

The WWWebster Dictionary, available from http://www.m-w.com/, includes the
following meaning of clear when used as an adjective:
4b : free from doubt : SURE

This leads to the conclusion that an aspect of the rules where doubt
exists is unclear, and hence that game custom and the spirit of the game
are the areas for the Judge to consider in reaching a decision.

A player should only submit a CFJ in the following circumstances:
(1) Not all players agree on the meaning of a particular rule or section.
(2) A player is unsure of the meaning of a particular rule or section.
In both cases, said rule can obviously not be said to be free from doubt,
and hence the rules are unclear.

Therefore, the new rule will be ignored by the judge, who must consider
existing game custom instead.

The author of this CFJ notes that this would lead to a field day.  I would
like to see arguments explaining why it does not.

Judge's Comments:

One part of Slakko's reasoning is that:

"A player should only submit a CFJ in the following circumstances:
(1) Not all players agree on the meaning of a particular rule or
section.
(2) A player is unsure of the meaning of a particular rule or section.
In both cases, said rule can obviously not be said to be free from
doubt,
and hence the rules are unclear."

This is not the case. Rule 211 states that:

"Any player who has a question or complaint about any matter concerning
the rules, the facts, or their interpretation may email their statement
to the Clerk of the Court, who will then distribute it publicly."

This gives a third instance where a player would submit a CFJ. In this
case a CFJ could be submitted on a question unambiguously described in
the rules, made by a player because he was unaware of the particular
rule mentioning it.

The statement is therefore not accurate in all cases which means I can
only judge it false. However, I feel that this matter is not closed
because a similar CFJ which was re-worded could work its way around
that problem. I certainly don't want to be the one to judge *that*.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:21:27 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Intent

> I intend to found YAT#4

Presuming this is a church then I shall join.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:19:36 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >I hereby join YAT#3.
> >I hereby leave YAT#1
> YAT#3 has been founded with else...if as founder, and Malenkai, The Gingham
> Wearer, and Slakko as members.  It has no public Church Dogma
> I order YAT#2 to trasfer its Secret Laboratory to YAT#3.
> I order YAT#3 to make a Vending Machine with its Secret Laboratory
> I excommunicate Malenkai from YAT#2 (again, nothing personal, I'm just
> rotating who I excommunicate)
> I intend to found the church YAT#4.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#5.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#6.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#7.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#8.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> 
> If Malekai and The Gingham Wearer would kindly join those five, and Slakko,
> would you please join YAT#4, we can do this again.

I leave YAT#2.
I leave YAT#3
I join YAT#4
I join YAT#5

> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 21:20:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

I leave YAT #5
I join YAT #3.

> >I hereby join YAT#3.
> >I hereby leave YAT#1
> YAT#3 has been founded with else...if as founder, and Malenkai, The Gingham
> Wearer, and Slakko as members.  It has no public Church Dogma
> I order YAT#2 to trasfer its Secret Laboratory to YAT#3.
> I order YAT#3 to make a Vending Machine with its Secret Laboratory
> I excommunicate Malenkai from YAT#2 (again, nothing personal, I'm just
> rotating who I excommunicate)
> I intend to found the church YAT#4.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#5.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#6.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#7.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#8.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> 
> If Malekai and The Gingham Wearer would kindly join those five, and Slakko,
> would you please join YAT#4, we can do this again.
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 16:24:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

> I intend to found the church YAT#4.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.

I join this church, but may have to bow out soon.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 13:31:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 123

> There was only one objection to this CSR within 3 days, so it is now
> enacted.

Damn. I've been too busy lately, else I probably would have submitted
the second objection.

>> In Rule 594.16, place a double quotation mark immediately before the
>> first occurance of the word They" in the last paragraph.

Proposal 2492 modified this Rule; fortunately it was modified so that
there is no occurrence of 'They"', so this change has no effect.

>> In Rule 594.15, replace the word Widget with Frobnotzer.

This happens.

>> In Rule 594.1 place an open parenthesis symbol immediately before the
>> first occurance of the word which.

This also happens, unfortunately, since Proposal 2492 also fixed
this. 'which' is now preceded by two open parentheses.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 21:37:04 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

> I intend to found the church YAT#4.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The
Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.
> I intend to found the church YAT#5.  Only Malekai, Slakko, and The
Gingham
> Wearer are invited to join.

I hereby leave YAT#2. I hereby join YAT#4 and YAT#5.

BTW It's a bit cruel not to allow Malenkai to join.... Also, wouldn't
it be easier to transfer the gadget created from one church to the next
before changing the church to a cult. As it stands we'll have to rejoin
the cults to make them into churches to get access to the gadgets (it
is impermissible for a cult to trade). Don't the rules say a church has
to have Church dogma? I don't want to go through all this just to make
an error.

The Gingham Wearer.                                                    

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:17:10 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

How does the idea of voting on proposals sound?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:31:12 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

>BTW It's a bit cruel not to allow Malenkai to join.... Also, wouldn't
>it be easier to transfer the gadget created from one church to the next
>before changing the church to a cult. As it stands we'll have to rejoin
>the cults to make them into churches to get access to the gadgets (it
>is impermissible for a cult to trade). Don't the rules say a church has
>to have Church dogma? I don't want to go through all this just to make
>an error.
	Oops, sorry about the misspelling.  Don't forget the item isn't
created for three days.  Finally, I just realized that I never got the A$50
(Slakki transfered it to YAT#1 before YAT#1 was created.)  The good news is
that I found a faster way to do the whole thing.  Therefore:
I leave all cults of which I am a member and which own nothing.
(You three, please offer to join ALL of them.  They only come into
existance when I send a message specifically saying so, and I won't make
more than two of them Churches at any given time.)
I intend to create a church named AHH#1.
I intend to create a church named AHH#2.
I intend to create a church named AHH#3.
I intend to create a church named AHH#4.
I intend to create a church named AHH#5.
I intend to create a church named AHH#6.
I intend to create a church named AHH#7.
I intend to create a church named AHH#8.
I intend to create a church named AHH#9.
I intend to create a church named AHH#10.
I intend to create a church named AHH#11.
I intend to create a church named AHH#12.
I intend to create a church named AHH#13.
I intend to create a church named AHH#14.
I intend to create a church named AHH#15.
I intend to create a church named AHH#16.
I intend to create a church named AHH#17.
I intend to create a church named AHH#18.
I intend to create a church named AHH#19.
I intend to create a church named AHH#20.
I intend to create a church named AHH#21.
I intend to create a church named AHH#22.
I intend to create a church named AHH#23.
I intend to create a church named AHH#24.
I intend to create a church named AHH#25.
I intend to create a church named AHH#26.
I intend to create a church named AHH#27.
I intend to create a church named AHH#28.
I intend to create a church named AHH#29.
I intend to create a church named AHH#30.
I intend to create a church named AHH#31.
I intend to create a church named AHH#32.
I intend to create a church named AHH#33.
I intend to create a church named AHH#34.
I intend to create a church named AHH#35.
I intend to create a church named AHH#36.
I intend to create a church named AHH#37.
I intend to create a church named AHH#38.
I intend to create a church named AHH#39.
I intend to create a church named AHH#40.
I intend to create a church named AHH#41.
I intend to create a church named AHH#42.
I intend to create a church named AHH#43.
I intend to create a church named AHH#44.
I intend to create a church named AHH#45.
I intend to create a church named AHH#46.
I intend to create a church named AHH#47.
I intend to create a church named AHH#48.
I intend to create a church named AHH#49.
I intend to create a church named AHH#50.
I intend to create a church named AHH#51.
I intend to create a church named AHH#52.
I intend to create a church named AHH#53.
I intend to create a church named AHH#54.
I intend to create a church named AHH#55.
I intend to create a church named AHH#56.
I intend to create a church named AHH#57.
I intend to create a church named AHH#58.
I intend to create a church named AHH#59.
I intend to create a church named AHH#60.

- --
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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 00:34:39 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> How does the idea of voting on proposals sound?
> 
> Malenkai

Damn. I hereby retract proposal 2504.

The Gingham Wearer

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:45:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 489 (Michael Wren)

CFJ 489 has been assigned to Michael Wren.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 489
  Subject: Annoying the CotC
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-13 16:53
    Judge: Michael Wren (selected 97-12-13 19:45)
Judgement: 

Statement:

CFJ 485 was retracted.

Slakko's Reasoning:

There are two reasons here.  Either one should be sufficient for a verdict
of TRUE.

Reason 1: There is nothing in the rules which prohibits prospective
actions.  It was clear and unambiguous that whichever CFJ initiated by
me was first distributed by Malenkai after my message calling for a
retraction was to be retracted one second after its issue.  It was clear
and unambiguous (yet to be determined at the time it was issued, but not
ambiguous).  Therefore it was retracted.

Reason 2: There is no proof that /dev/joe accepted judgeship on the CFJ
before the supposed verdict was handed down.  As such, he was not the
judge, and hence the "verdict" did not in fact exist.  Therefore, no
verdict has been issued, and hence the retraction which occurred today
after the "verdict" was successful.

End of Reasoning.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:34:11 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>How does the idea of voting on proposals sound?
	Am I missing something?

- --
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, 13 Dec 1997 19:41:59 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

	What do people think of having an addendum to the rules
(maintained, of course, by the addendum harfer) which lists important
points of game custom, and CFJ's which affect the interpretation of the
rule?  It would be mostly for new players, so they don't need to search
through thousands of CFJ's to find things.

- --
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

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #415
*******************************