Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #437
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Sunday, December 28 1997       Volume 02 : Number 437

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:06:42 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: vacation

**Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> I know I really should have done that cfj and the eggplants and some
> voting first

> Damn, and I was planing a tasty ratatouille this week...
>

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:36:42 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Name change

I hereby change my name to "No other players" and stroll arrogantly into
Vulcan Headquarters. I then take a look around, verify that the interior is
not infinitely large and decide that being an evil overlord of Ackanomic
(retired) isn't worth it.

I then change my name back to "The Gingham Wearer".

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 08:18:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

> I hereby change my name to "No other players" and stroll arrogantly into
> Vulcan Headquarters. I then take a look around, verify that the interior is
> not infinitely large and decide that being an evil overlord of Ackanomic
> (retired) isn't worth it.
> 
> I then change my name back to "The Gingham Wearer".

Let me say first that I appreciate your chutzpah.

However:

1) A name change does not actually occur until the Registrar has acked
   it.
2) Malenkai's Loophole isn't *that* big. "No other players" is not a
   free noun phrase, but already has a clear definition, and so it
   cannot be hijacked quite so easily.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:43:44 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

> > I hereby change my name to "No other players" and stroll arrogantly
into
> > Vulcan Headquarters. I then take a look around, verify that the
interior is
> > not infinitely large and decide that being an evil overlord of
Ackanomic
> > (retired) isn't worth it.
> > 
> > I then change my name back to "The Gingham Wearer".
> 
> Let me say first that I appreciate your chutzpah.
> 
> However:
> 
> 1) A name change does not actually occur until the Registrar has acked
>    it.

Fine. In that case I change my name back to "No other players". I'll try
again when the registrar has acked it.

> 2) Malenkai's Loophole isn't *that* big. "No other players" is not a
>    free noun phrase, but already has a clear definition, and so it
>    cannot be hijacked quite so easily.

I disagree. "No other players" does not already have a clear definition.
Granted, in the context in which it is used there is very little doubt as
to what it is referring but there is still some doubt there. Additionally,
I don't see why there being a clear definition already should prevent me
from attempting this. Is there any rule covering this sort of thing, or any
relevant CFJs I should know about?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 13:05:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

> I disagree. "No other players" does not already have a clear
> definition.  Granted, in the context in which it is used there is
> very little doubt as to what it is referring but there is still some
> doubt there.

What doubt? Nowhere in the rules or in game custom is there *any*
indication that "No other players" does not mean exactly what it means
in English. And nothing in Rule 1 indicates that the the noun phrase
doesn't make perfect sense when rendered in its standard English
meaning. I personally cannot see a single reason why the
interpretation of "No other players" as a proper noun should be
considered more obvious.

> I don't see why there being a clear definition already should
> prevent me from attempting this.

Well, to be precise, nothing prevents you from attempting it.

> Is there any rule covering this sort of thing, or any relevant CFJs
> I should know about?

No rules, just the metarule that words not given special definitions
and/or meanings by the rules are considered to have their normal
English meanings.

As for CFJs regarding Malenkai's Loophole, CFJ 415 and CFJ 452 are
good choices.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 01:00:56 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

> > I disagree. "No other players" does not already have a clear
> > definition.  Granted, in the context in which it is used there is
> > very little doubt as to what it is referring but there is still some
> > doubt there.
> 
> What doubt? Nowhere in the rules or in game custom is there *any*
> indication that "No other players" does not mean exactly what it means
> in English. And nothing in Rule 1 indicates that the the noun phrase
> doesn't make perfect sense when rendered in its standard English
> meaning. I personally cannot see a single reason why the
> interpretation of "No other players" as a proper noun should be
> considered more obvious.

English is not a precise and exact language (unlike Vulcan :-)) and there
is therefore always going to be some doubt as to what is being referred to.
Just because something makes sense does not mean it is the only
interpretation. For example, a man at the vets becomes increasingly sure
that the vet doesn't know what he's doing. The vet is holding the man's dog
so the man tells the vet to "Put her down". The vet then kills the dog.
This is a legitimate interpretation of the statement but not the correct
one. As for the question, why should the phrase "No other players" be
considered a proper noun, I don't know. But I know of no reason why it
*shouldn't* be, either.

> 
> > I don't see why there being a clear definition already should
> > prevent me from attempting this.
> 
> Well, to be precise, nothing prevents you from attempting it.

Let be rephrase that. Is there anything that prevents me from succeeding?

> 
> > Is there any rule covering this sort of thing, or any relevant CFJs
> > I should know about?
> 
> No rules, just the metarule that words not given special definitions
> and/or meanings by the rules are considered to have their normal
> English meanings.

Unless there is some other meaning appropriate to the game state? Right?
Anyhow, no phrase in the English language is not subject to some doubt so
"normal English meanings" doesn't really make sense.

> 
> As for CFJs regarding Malenkai's Loophole, CFJ 415 and CFJ 452 are
> good choices.

Most intriguing. Reading through them though, I couldn't find anything that
prevented me from doing what I am attempting.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:07:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 497 Verdict

CFJ 497 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 497
  Subject: Judging CFJ 495
Initiator: else..if
Submitted: 97-12-17 22:20
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected 97-12-20 15:19)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
        It is impossible to judge CFJ 495, thus making further play on this
impossible.

Reasoning:
        If CFJ is judged TRUE, than it is FALSE, and therefore must not be
judged FALSE, and must be judged TRUE.  This is clearly a paradox.  A
judgement of UNDECIDED does not help the issue because it only moves the
case to the Supreme Court.  CFJ 495 is not "inherently contradictory."
Rule 211 says that CFJs with inherently contradictory statements are
invalid.  However all 495's statement says is that the CFJ is false.  This
statement does not conflict with itself.  Even if it is argued that the CFJ
as a whole is self-contradictory, that does not make the *statement*
self-contradictory, as is required for it to be INVALID.  If this is judged
TRUE, I claim a paradox win as specified in rule 601.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Here is the Statement of CFJ 495:

        This CFJ is false.

Rule 215 states, "All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules
in effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the
game state at that time."

At the time CFJ 495 was submitted, the CFJ was neither TRUE nor FALSE.
(I'm not quite sure whether one can refer to the CFJ _itself_ as being
TRUE or FALSE, as opposed to being _judged_ TRUE or FALSE, but for the
moment I'll accept it.  else...if could just resubmit CFJ 495 with the
appropriate phrasing anyway.  :-)

So, therefore, one can only judge CFJ 495 as FALSE, because it states
that CFJ 495 has a truth value _at the time it was submitted_, which it
does not.  Even if ruling CFJ 495 to be FALSE makes the statement TRUE
just after the judgement is delivered, it does not change the fact
that the statement was not TRUE when CFJ 495 was submitted.

Thus, it _is_ possible to judge CFJ 495, and this CFJ's statement is
FALSE.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:09:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 494 Verdict

CFJ 494 has been judged FALSE.  This eliminates CFJ 484 (A) and
its appeals and any loss of points for deadbeating on it that
occurred during its history.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 494
  Subject: Multiple Judges
Initiator: else..if
Submitted: 97-12-16 22:07
    Judge: two-star (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (assigned 97-12-21 21:16)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

        A new judge must be chosen for CFJ 484.

else..if's Reasoning:

        The portion of rule 212 in question says: "The player selected has
3 days in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the
applicable officer....If a selected player actively declines appointment,
then a further random selection is made from the remaining pool."  Clearly,
Balsamic Dragon accepted judgement for CFJ 484, and according to rule 213,
must deliver a judgement.  However, in addition, Balsamic Dragon has
declined judgement.  Therefore a new judge must be chosen.  In particular,
it is worth noting that the conjunction "or" in English is ambiguous, and
can mean "A or B," or "A or B, but not both"  In its strict logical context
however, it is taken to mean the latter.  Since there is no indication
other than game custom that both refusing and accepting is impossible, and
using the strictest definition of the word "or" it is indeed possible,
Balsamic Dragon has both accepted and refused CFJ 484, and a new judge must
be selected.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

As the initiator has pointed out, the word "or" in rule 213 appears
ambiguous.  The first definition of "or" in my dictionary is: "used
as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee ~ tea> 
<sink ~ swim> ...".  In other words, one alternative but not both.
(This is confirmed by a check of the definition of 'alternative':
"a proposition or situation offering a choice between two or more things
only one of which may be chosen").  [interesting, but irrelevant,
to note that 'or' is defined using 'alternative', and 'alternative'
is defined using 'or' :-)].

The fourth definition in that same dictionary goes on to define "or"
in the logical sense, meaning one alternative, or perhaps both,
which is the definition that would allow a judge to both accept
and decline a CFJ, as the initiator seems to be arguing for.

It is my judgement that the first definition given in this case is
the traditional English meaning of the word "or", and that "or" is
rarely construed as in the fourth definition, except under certain
specific circumstances, where the context makes it clear that this
is the intended construction.  

Game custom has preferred traditional English construction unless the
construct in question has been overloaded by the rules or prior
disambiguating customary interpretation.  I see no reason why the
logical construction should be favored over the traditional one in
this case.  Moreover, a search of the rules for "or" backs up using
the traditional as opposed to the logical meaning.

Thus accepting and refusing (declining) are alternatives, and once
Balsamic Dragon accepted CFJ 484, an alternative had been chosen,
hence refusing was no longer possible, thus eir attempt to do
so failed, hence my verdict of FALSE. 

I must point out that at the time this CFJ was filed, Balsamic Dragon
had not yet deadbeated, so there was no other reason at that time to
choose a new judge either.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:22:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 484 (Vynd)

CFJ 484 has been reassigned to Vynd.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 484
  Subject: Trinkets
Initiator: Malenkai
Submitted: 97-12-11 9:09
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Balsamic Dragon (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (deadbeat)
4th Judge: Vynd (selected 97-12-28 20:22)
Judgement: 

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.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:30:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 503 (Alfvaen)

CFJ 503 has been assigned to Alfvaen.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 503
  Subject: Does this apply to multiplication by zero also?
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Submitted: 97-12-28 10:01
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected 97-12-28 20:30)
Judgement:

Statement:

Changing the rules is impossible.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Rule 340 states:
"Whenever division is performed in Ackanomic, and the denomonator of that
division evaluates to 0, then the result of that entire division shall be
0."

By defining a number divided by 0 then all numbers are equal.

For example:
if a/x=y
and b/x=y
then a=b

1/0=0
2/0=0
therefore 1=2

Likewise all numbers are equal to all other numbers. No new rule can be
created since it is impossible to give the rule a unique number. No rule
can be modified or repealed since it is impossible to unambiguously state
which rule is to be modified or repealed.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 20:35:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Batman

> E-mail me if you want to be the Caped Crusader.  The
> nomination lasts for 3 days.

The volunteers are 

else..if
ThinMan

Reply to rufus to vote.  Hopefully majordomo didn't muck
with the reply to field :-)

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:58:58 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

breadbox wrote:

[The Gingham Wearer (I think) wrote:]
>> Is there any rule covering this sort of thing, or any relevant CFJs
>> I should know about?
>
>No rules, just the metarule that words not given special definitions
>and/or meanings by the rules are considered to have their normal
>English meanings.

Actually, although breadbox is correct, IMO, about Malenkai's loophole
not being applicable to the attempted usage, I should point out that
I believe he is incorrect about no rules being applicable.  Please
peruse the final paragraph of rule 1, which I believe says (among
other things) that the game state may not be changed so as to cause
the correct interpretation of any of the language of rule 1 to change.
That pretty much puts the kabosh on the whole affair, I believe.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:02:34 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Name change

The Gingham Wearer hallucinated:

>I hereby change my name to "No other players" and stroll arrogantly into
>Vulcan Headquarters. I then take a look around, verify that the interior is
>not infinitely large and decide that being an evil overlord of Ackanomic
>(retired) isn't worth it.

In this hallucination, I take great glee in ejecting The Gingham Wearer
from Vulcan Headquarters with our slightly disused catapult.  I hope he
makes it home; the artillerists may be a little out of practice.

ThinMan

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #437
*******************************