Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #435
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, December 26 1997       Volume 02 : Number 435

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:59:46 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (A) Verdict

The Gingham Wearer wrote:

>> > Rule 506 states "Trinkets always have a positive, integral value in
>A$".
>> > I don't see any ambiguity in that.
>> > 
>> Shouldn't the Judege use the rules that were in effect at the time the
>CFJ
>> is called?  The rule was changed as part of the CRD.  
>
>The CRD applied retroactively so that there was never a time when that
>wasn't the case.

I do not believe that to be the case.  In fact, I'm just about certain that
it is not.  The CRD did not act retroactively; instead, at the time it passed
it changed the game state to what it would have been if P1493 (I think that's
the right number) had not passed.  Between P1493's passage and the CRD, there
was a time when it may or may not have been the case that trinkets with
negative values could be created.  During that time, the CFJ in question was
filed, and the rules require that it be judged according to the rules of that
time.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 18:36:10 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (A) Verdict

> >The CRD applied retroactively so that there was never a time when that
> >wasn't the case.
> 
> I do not believe that to be the case.  In fact, I'm just about certain
that
> it is not.  The CRD did not act retroactively; instead, at the time it
passed
> it changed the game state to what it would have been if P1493 (I think
that's
> the right number) had not passed.  Between P1493's passage and the CRD,
there
> was a time when it may or may not have been the case that trinkets with
> negative values could be created.  During that time, the CFJ in question
was
> filed, and the rules require that it be judged according to the rules of
that
> time.

The problem here is the wording:
"The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary, as if proposal
2439 was not accepted."

Retroactively if necessary. I'm not sure whether or not it was necessary,
come to think of it, but whoever runs the rules page seems to think it was
(just check the changes to rule 506, proposal 2439 isn't mentioned).

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 15:58:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 501 Verdict

CFJ 501 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 501
  Subject: Super-Collosal Cycle Win Attempt
Initiator: two-star
Submitted: 97-12-21 16:22
    Judge: Vynd (selected 97-12-21 21:00)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
 
two-star owns the Malenkai and Alfvaen's Super-Collosal Cycle Win
Attempt.

initiator's reasoning:

Rule 506 reads, in part,

"A player-created Trinket, whose name contains the name of a current or
former player other than that of the creating player, such that the
player name in question existed before the Trinket was created, is a
forgery. The rules may define other circumstances under which a Trinket
is a forgery. Upon it becoming publically knowable that a Trinket is a
forgery, it is transferred to the Treasury, unless the player name
contained in its name is that of a currently active player, in which
case it is transferred to that player."

The supreme court's CFJ 474 reasoning causes me to believe that this cfj
should be judged false and the OiCoRT should choose one of the set of
players whose names are in the name of the trinket in question to
receive the forgery.

Vynd's Reasoning:

I am ruling this CFJ FALSE.  I see three possibilities as to what happened
to the Super-Collosal trinket, and none of them leave it in two-star's
posession.  It is my opinion that the trinket was transfered to the
Treasury upon it becoming publicly knowable that it was a forgery, because
it contained the name of more than one player.  Rule 506 specifies this as
the default occurance, and the only exception seems to deal with cases
where one player's name is included.  I realize this is a somewhat forced
reading, but it makes the most sense to me.  The other possibilities are
that it was transfered to one of the players in its name, or that it was
transfered to one of them, then immediately to the other one, and is in
some sort of endless loop.  And you thought my first possibility was
farfetched...

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 22:27:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (A) Verdict

The Gingham Wearer wrote:

>The problem here is the wording:
>"The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary, as if proposal
>2439 was not accepted."
>
>Retroactively if necessary. I'm not sure whether or not it was necessary,
>come to think of it, but whoever runs the rules page seems to think it was
>(just check the changes to rule 506, proposal 2439 isn't mentioned).

That is a good point.  I see at least two issues here:

(1) Is retrocativity necessary for any of the game state changes?

The answer here is probably yes, if it was in fact possible to create
negatively-valued trinkets.  There was some dabbling with satisfying
winning conditions among the various actions attempted with the
anti-trinket cash, and I don't believe that these can necessarilly be
fixed without revising history.  If no negative-valued trinkets were
created, however, then there was never enough of a crisis for a
retroactive fix to be required.  The latter alternative presumes that
the CFJ verdict rendered was correct without resorting to the
retroactivity argument.

(2) Does the CRD wording require an all-or-nothing retroactivity?

That is, can the retroactivity be restricted to cancelling just those
things (if any) where retroactivity is required, or does the CRD
require that it be applied whole hog if applied at all?  If the former,
then the CFJ reasoning is rubbish, although the verdict might (or might
not) still be correct.

These issues were not addressed in the reasoning, and I think it
would have been appropriate for the judge to have considered and
commented on them.  I will not be filing an appeal on this one, because
I am pretty much satisfied to let the whole thing die.  That is not to
say that I would object to an appeal; I just don't care enough to do it
myself.  I guess my biggest objection here is that the reasoning
essentially avoids the question -- even if the reasoning is sound, it
would have been good form, IMO, for the judge to at least take a stab
at the actual question (as of the original history).

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:31:00 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (A) Verdict

A state of crisis was only declared in the CFJ 484 TRUE thread and  thus
the CRD was only applied in the CFJ 484 TRUE thread. Until a Judgment
has been reached for CFJ 484 we don't even know if there was a CRD.

Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 484(A) has been judged TRUE.
>
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 484(A)
>   Subject: Trinkets
> Initiator: Malenkai
> Submitted: 97-12-11 9:09
>     Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (deadbeat)
> 2nd Judge: Balsamic Dragon (declined)
> 3rd Judge: K 2 (deadbeat)
> 4th Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 97-12-21 21:20)
> Judgement: TRUE
>
> Statement:
>
> Trinkets with a value of negative A$ may not be created.
>
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
>
> I'll write even less for Slakko to critique this time :)
>
> I don't know, a couple people have argued that it was not
> possible, we should at least find out.
>
> Judge's Reasoning:
>
> Rule 506 states "Trinkets always have a positive, integral value in A$".
> I don't see any ambiguity in that.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 22:50:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (A) Verdict

> >Retroactively if necessary. I'm not sure whether or not it was necessary,
> >come to think of it, but whoever runs the rules page seems to think it was
> >(just check the changes to rule 506, proposal 2439 isn't mentioned).
> 
> That is a good point.  I see at least two issues here:
> 
> (1) Is retrocativity necessary for any of the game state changes?

The fact that the CRD never happened in the TRUE thread may create
a bit of a sticky wicket if the judge is basing eir argument for
true on the (alledged) retroactivity ...

As for ThinMan's other comments, the retroactivity is only needed in
the CRD if there was a loss of information in the GS evolution from
the acceptance of the proposal until the time the CRD was issued.  Otherwise,
the rule created by the CRD has the necessary information to create
the offsetting tranactions, if you will, to fix the game state.  'Wins'
really have nothing to do with it, IMO, as that is just another change
in the game state, and it seems that the rules (rule 100 in this case)
can make cycles un-won if necessary without retroactivity.

Malenkai
retroactivity is the blood of the paradox sharks :)

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:11:36 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: B-Ack

I hereby return from Vacation.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Bowie:Diamond Dogs
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
"What a tasteful and relevant little story."

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 20:55:03 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: trinket creation

> > The Sceptre of banna #3, valued at 5A$.  It will suprise no one that this
> > is a banana-sized and shaped sceptre, which radiates the banna Nature. 
> > It is, however, red.  I give the Sceptre of banna to Red Barn.

> I believe that this last action fails because you haven't specified which
> Sceptre of banna it is you wish to give.

From context, and analogy with the format of the previous paragraphs, it
is sufficiently clear that I had no trouble figuring what was meant.  In
the interests of simplicity, I consider it Sceptre of banna #3 to have been
transferred to Red Barn at the time of the original message.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Klaatu:Hot Box City
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
Never lick a gift horse in the mouth.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:20:42 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (A) Verdict

> CFJ 484(A) has been judged TRUE.

If this has not already occurred, I am appealing this verdict.  I
believe that at the time between the passage of Proposal 2439(?) and
the acceptance of State of Crisis Resolution Document 101, it was
in fact possible to create trinkets with a value of negative A$.

Of course, if it never was, that's be fine too, but I don't think that
was the case.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Bowie:Diamond Dogs
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
Danger, dare to be grand.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:23:38 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Decomposing Composers

As Undead-Harfer, it is my sad duty to inform those here assembled that
Atilla the Pun, who I'm sure is vaguely remembered by us all, entered a
state of decomposition at midnight Ackatime on December 23rd.  With him
goes Little Bag O' Chips I, and, more poignantly, his house, "corresponding
to an infinite number of q's".

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Bowie:Diamond Dogs
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
Literature is a luxury; fiction is a necessity.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:29:48 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Runemaker Election

> The Runmaker Election is over, with Alfvaen and Slakko tying for votes.

> Slakko is appointed to the Office of Runemaker.

I graciously concede to the whims of chance, since I really do have
enough to do anyway.  :-)

Since RuneMaker is not a functional office, it does not seem to be
my prerogative to name an Acting RuneMaker(probably the Speaker's,
though I can't find it in the Rules anywhere); I encourage whoever's
duty it is to name me Acting RuneMaker until Slakko's return.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Bowie:Diamond Dogs
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
I had a dream last night about a book I read, and in the book the dream was dead

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:32:51 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Treasure-Harfer

Out of the candidates who volunteered for Treasure-Harfer(The Gingham
Wearer, K 2, Malenkai, and myself--the latter two out of a sense of
duty more than anything...:-), I hereby appoint The Gingham Wearer as
Treasure-Harfer.  Assuming he can get a Treasure page put up in a
reasonable amount of time...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Bowie:Diamond Dogs
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
I don't know what kind of medicine is inside this melon.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:35:53 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 501 Verdict

> Vynd's Reasoning:

> I am ruling this CFJ FALSE.  I see three possibilities as to what happened
> to the Super-Collosal trinket, and none of them leave it in two-star's
> posession.  It is my opinion that the trinket was transfered to the
> Treasury upon it becoming publicly knowable that it was a forgery, because
> it contained the name of more than one player.  Rule 506 specifies this as
> the default occurance, and the only exception seems to deal with cases
> where one player's name is included.  I realize this is a somewhat forced
> reading, but it makes the most sense to me.  The other possibilities are
> that it was transfered to one of the players in its name, or that it was
> transfered to one of them, then immediately to the other one, and is in
> some sort of endless loop.  And you thought my first possibility was
> farfetched...

I believe that Vynd's first case should be correct, since Rule 506's
"if" clause is "unless the player name contained in its name...", and
since _the_ player name is a meaningless reference, that clause can't
evaluate to true.

So when was it publicly knowable it was a forgery?  When it was created,
or when it was pointed out?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Bowie:Diamond Dogs
Current Book--Jacqueline Lichtenberg:RenSime
Arguments with furniture are rarely productive.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 23:42:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Runemaker Election

> Since RuneMaker is not a functional office, it does not seem to be
> my prerogative to name an Acting RuneMaker(probably the Speaker's,
> though I can't find it in the Rules anywhere); I encourage whoever's
> duty it is to name me Acting RuneMaker until Slakko's return.

Its my duty, and I am acting Runemaker by default, assuming a 
Runemaker was elected by methods described in the rules.  Is there
a compelling need to do this?  It seems like lame ducking it
until Slakko returns will be less confusing.  Moreover, I have
not had time to look into whether the election was conducted,
and resolved, by methods described in the rules yet.

I seem to remember something in the vacation rule about
prohibitions on randomly selecting a player on vacation for anything.
I have not, however, had the time to look into this yet, or its 
implications, but my hunch is that Count Tabula would have to wait
until one, or both, of you returned from vacation, and then roll the
dice.  Since waiting for Slakko to return would violate the speed rule,
it would seem ... well I, or someone else, has to look into it. 

Malenkai
Speaker

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #435
*******************************