Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #438
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Monday, December 29 1997       Volume 02 : Number 438

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 01:46:09 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 484 (Vynd)

Ugh.  Fine, I'll accept, but I don't have to like it.

On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 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 23:38:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

> 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.

Believe me, I am *well* aware of this fact.

> 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.

Well, consider this. Only one of all the possible interpretations of
the rules can prevail. As an interpreter, one must choose. In this
case, the choice is this: Does "No other players" refer to the set of
players minus the four mentioned in the previous sentence, or does it
refer to an entity with the name "No other players"? It can't be both.

The issue is not that the latter interpretation can't *possibly* be
right. Of course it can. But can you reasonably defend it as being the
*better* interpretation than the former? Can you convince the rest of
us that these three words - which happen to look an awful lot like a
noun phrase, which are not modified by anything that would indicate
that they are not meant to be taken at face value (e.g., "The entity
named No other players ..."), and which make perfectly clear sense as
a simple noun phrase - actually make better sense when read as the
name of an entity? an entity which is nowhere defined in the rules,
did not exist when the rule was created, and in fact has yet to ever
exist?

I reiterate: I'm not saying it's impossible. It's just that I am
completely at a loss as to how one would go about discrediting the
former interpretation. It's not enough to just cast the shadow of a
doubt on it. This is English, not formal logic, and *every* phrase is
subject to some doubt and potential ambiguity. That doesn't mean we
get to pick our favorite interpretation and call it the right one.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:42:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change

> 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.

Hm. That's true, I did in fact overlook that earlier. You may indeed
be correct in your assessment.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:33:24 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: (see I remembered!) Fw: INP 355 rejected

- ----------
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> To: Internomic <[email-masked]>
> Subject: INP 355 rejected
> Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 7:47 PM
> 
> INP 355 (the 'Play Nomic' proposal), was rejected.
> 
> Against: Ackanomic, Agora, Internonic [and New Rishonomic assuming
> it is a voting member].

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:39:55 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hi, peoples.

I return from vacation, feeling well-rested (As a non-voting player, I
wasn't too concerned about announcing it).  

I change my status to Voting.

I request admission to SPAM, and hope that Slakko is willing to take me
back into the fold...

- --
Aaron Keesler
Adtran, Inc.
- --

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:39:49 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Lamb

I hereby take possession of the little lamb.  (And pay the associated
A$10 price.)

ThinMan
Sheepherder

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

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:16:30 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------9CF6E4EBAC1034949C41E9F7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please comment on this. The costs are highly negotiable

*****************
The uses of points

This rule defines ways in which points may be used. Other rules may
define other uses.

If as a result of any of the following actions, a player's score would
become negative then the attempt fails.

Only a player with a positive score may attempt the following actions.

A player may, as a public action :

  convert any positive number of es own points into 2.5 times as many
Ackadollars rounded down. The points are deducted from es score and the
ackadollars are transferred from the treasury. If the treasury does not
contain enough $A the attempt fails.

{{[ currently 1 swingpoint is worth $A5 (as a chess piece discount) or 2

points -> thus 1 point would be worth 2.5 $A. This seems a little low to

me;
it costs $A5000 to win and the magic number is currently 379 -> 1 point
= $A13]}}

  change the weighted probability of a particular event, prior to its
determination in the following manner :
    1.  unambiguously stating the specific random event and the outcome
to be re-weighted.
    2.  Weather the particular outcome is to be made more likely or less

likely.
    3.  stating a positive number of eir own points to be used.
the points are deducted from eir score. For each point used the
probability of the stated outcome occurring in the random event is
modified in the desired manner by 1%.
The probability of an event occurring may not be altered above 100% or
below 1%.

  change the name of any active player to any legal ackanomic name at a
cost of 5 points. A player may only perform this action at most once a
month.

{{[ kinda like The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really ]}}

  lengthen or shorten the term of an office that has one in the
following manner :
    1.  unambiguously specifying the office and its current encumbering
    2.  weather the length of the term is to be increased or increased.
For every 5 points used the term of office is increased or decreased by
one day. A term of office may only be altered by a total of 14 days by
this method.

 create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a scientist,

except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
manner.

  announce eir intent to deliver an extra Frankenstein Part to the mad
scientist in the current calendar week. 5 points are deducted from eir
score. The player then has the option of submitting  a total of two
parts during the current calendar week.

  cause the magic potato to be redistributed at a cost of 5 points.

  amend the rule Beldin's Pants as if e were Beldin's Tailor at a cost
of 15 points. This may only be done once per player per cycle.

  may as a public action create a random Otzma card in their possession
at a cost of 15 points. Only one Otzma card per player per month may be
made in this manner.

A player may also :

  cast two bonus votes on a proposal, instead of just one, at a cost of
15 points. the points are lost when it becomes publicly knowable that
the extra bonus vote was cast. This section has precedence over rule 317

with regards to how many bonus votes may be cast on a particular
proposal.

  cast an extra vote in a hearing or election, as thought they possessed

an evil ballot stuffier at a cost of 10 points.

**********

{{[ it would be interesting to have the 'cost' of these actions vary
with the amount of use each gets. For instance a action that has not
been performed in the last [insert a time frame here (calendar month?)]
would have its cost reduced (but not lower than its base value). An
action that had been performed twice in the last [insert another time
frame here] would have its cost increased. Of course this would
potentially be alot of acking and would require another office...}}]

- --------------9CF6E4EBAC1034949C41E9F7
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:12:56 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: RFC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please comment on this. The costs are highly negotiable

*****************
The uses of points

This rule defines ways in which points may be used. Other rules may
define other uses.

If as a result of any of the following actions, a player's score would
become negative then the attempt fails.

Only a player with a positive score may attempt the following actions.

A player may, as a public action :

  convert any positive number of es own points into 2.5 times as many
Ackadollars rounded down. The points are deducted from es score and the
ackadollars are transferred from the treasury. If the treasury does not
contain enough $A the attempt fails.

{{[ currently 1 swingpoint is worth $A5 (as a chess piece discount) or 2
points -> thus 1 point would be worth 2.5 $A. This seems a little low to
me;
it costs $A5000 to win and the magic number is currently 379 -> 1 point
= $A13]}}

  change the weighted probability of a particular event, prior to its
determination in the following manner :
    1.  unambiguously stating the specific random event and the outcome
to be re-weighted.
    2.  Weather the particular outcome is to be made more likely or less
likely.
    3.  stating a positive number of eir own points to be used.
the points are deducted from eir score. For each point used the
probability of the stated outcome occurring in the random event is
modified in the desired manner by 1%.
The probability of an event occurring may not be altered above 100% or
below 1%.

  change the name of any active player to any legal ackanomic name at a
cost of 5 points. A player may only perform this action at most once a
month.

{{[ kinda like The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really ]}}

  lengthen or shorten the term of an office that has one in the
following manner :
    1.  unambiguously specifying the office and its current encumbering
    2.  weather the length of the term is to be increased or increased.
For every 5 points used the term of office is increased or decreased by
one day. A term of office may only be altered by a total of 14 days by
this method.

 create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a scientist,
except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
manner.

  announce eir intent to deliver an extra Frankenstein Part to the mad
scientist in the current calendar week. 5 points are deducted from eir
score. The player then has the option of submitting  a total of two
parts during the current calendar week.

  cause the magic potato to be redistributed at a cost of 5 points.

  amend the rule Beldin's Pants as if e were Beldin's Tailor at a cost
of 15 points. This may only be done once per player per cycle.

  may as a public action create a random Otzma card in their possession
at a cost of 15 points. Only one Otzma card per player per month may be
made in this manner.

A player may also :

  cast two bonus votes on a proposal, instead of just one, at a cost of
15 points. the points are lost when it becomes publicly knowable that
the extra bonus vote was cast. This section has precedence over rule 317
with regards to how many bonus votes may be cast on a particular
proposal.

  cast an extra vote in a hearing or election, as thought they possessed
an evil ballot stuffier at a cost of 10 points.

**********

{{[ it would be interesting to have the 'cost' of these actions vary
with the amount of use each gets. For instance a action that has not
been performed in the last [insert a time frame here (calendar month?)]
would have its cost reduced (but not lower than its base value). An
action that had been performed twice in the last [insert another time
frame here] would have its cost increased. Of course this would
potentially be alot of acking and would require another office...}}]

- --------------9CF6E4EBAC1034949C41E9F7--

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

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:16:42 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------7949FD4475AF9FAA311F3331
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please comment on this. The costs are highly negotiable

*****************
The uses of points

This rule defines ways in which points may be used. Other rules may
define other uses.

If as a result of any of the following actions, a player's score would
become negative then the attempt fails.

Only a player with a positive score may attempt the following actions.

A player may, as a public action :

  convert any positive number of es own points into 2.5 times as many
Ackadollars rounded down. The points are deducted from es score and the
ackadollars are transferred from the treasury. If the treasury does not
contain enough $A the attempt fails.

{{[ currently 1 swingpoint is worth $A5 (as a chess piece discount) or 2

points -> thus 1 point would be worth 2.5 $A. This seems a little low to

me;
it costs $A5000 to win and the magic number is currently 379 -> 1 point
= $A13]}}

  change the weighted probability of a particular event, prior to its
determination in the following manner :
    1.  unambiguously stating the specific random event and the outcome
to be re-weighted.
    2.  Weather the particular outcome is to be made more likely or less

likely.
    3.  stating a positive number of eir own points to be used.
the points are deducted from eir score. For each point used the
probability of the stated outcome occurring in the random event is
modified in the desired manner by 1%.
The probability of an event occurring may not be altered above 100% or
below 1%.

  change the name of any active player to any legal ackanomic name at a
cost of 5 points. A player may only perform this action at most once a
month.

{{[ kinda like The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really ]}}

  lengthen or shorten the term of an office that has one in the
following manner :
    1.  unambiguously specifying the office and its current encumbering
    2.  weather the length of the term is to be increased or increased.
For every 5 points used the term of office is increased or decreased by
one day. A term of office may only be altered by a total of 14 days by
this method.

 create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a scientist,

except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
manner.

  announce eir intent to deliver an extra Frankenstein Part to the mad
scientist in the current calendar week. 5 points are deducted from eir
score. The player then has the option of submitting  a total of two
parts during the current calendar week.

  cause the magic potato to be redistributed at a cost of 5 points.

  amend the rule Beldin's Pants as if e were Beldin's Tailor at a cost
of 15 points. This may only be done once per player per cycle.

  may as a public action create a random Otzma card in their possession
at a cost of 15 points. Only one Otzma card per player per month may be
made in this manner.

A player may also :

  cast two bonus votes on a proposal, instead of just one, at a cost of
15 points. the points are lost when it becomes publicly knowable that
the extra bonus vote was cast. This section has precedence over rule 317

with regards to how many bonus votes may be cast on a particular
proposal.

  cast an extra vote in a hearing or election, as thought they possessed

an evil ballot stuffier at a cost of 10 points.

**********

{{[ it would be interesting to have the 'cost' of these actions vary
with the amount of use each gets. For instance a action that has not
been performed in the last [insert a time frame here (calendar month?)]
would have its cost reduced (but not lower than its base value). An
action that had been performed twice in the last [insert another time
frame here] would have its cost increased. Of course this would
potentially be alot of acking and would require another office...}}]

- --------------7949FD4475AF9FAA311F3331
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:12:56 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: RFC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please comment on this. The costs are highly negotiable

*****************
The uses of points

This rule defines ways in which points may be used. Other rules may
define other uses.

If as a result of any of the following actions, a player's score would
become negative then the attempt fails.

Only a player with a positive score may attempt the following actions.

A player may, as a public action :

  convert any positive number of es own points into 2.5 times as many
Ackadollars rounded down. The points are deducted from es score and the
ackadollars are transferred from the treasury. If the treasury does not
contain enough $A the attempt fails.

{{[ currently 1 swingpoint is worth $A5 (as a chess piece discount) or 2
points -> thus 1 point would be worth 2.5 $A. This seems a little low to
me;
it costs $A5000 to win and the magic number is currently 379 -> 1 point
= $A13]}}

  change the weighted probability of a particular event, prior to its
determination in the following manner :
    1.  unambiguously stating the specific random event and the outcome
to be re-weighted.
    2.  Weather the particular outcome is to be made more likely or less
likely.
    3.  stating a positive number of eir own points to be used.
the points are deducted from eir score. For each point used the
probability of the stated outcome occurring in the random event is
modified in the desired manner by 1%.
The probability of an event occurring may not be altered above 100% or
below 1%.

  change the name of any active player to any legal ackanomic name at a
cost of 5 points. A player may only perform this action at most once a
month.

{{[ kinda like The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really ]}}

  lengthen or shorten the term of an office that has one in the
following manner :
    1.  unambiguously specifying the office and its current encumbering
    2.  weather the length of the term is to be increased or increased.
For every 5 points used the term of office is increased or decreased by
one day. A term of office may only be altered by a total of 14 days by
this method.

 create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a scientist,
except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
manner.

  announce eir intent to deliver an extra Frankenstein Part to the mad
scientist in the current calendar week. 5 points are deducted from eir
score. The player then has the option of submitting  a total of two
parts during the current calendar week.

  cause the magic potato to be redistributed at a cost of 5 points.

  amend the rule Beldin's Pants as if e were Beldin's Tailor at a cost
of 15 points. This may only be done once per player per cycle.

  may as a public action create a random Otzma card in their possession
at a cost of 15 points. Only one Otzma card per player per month may be
made in this manner.

A player may also :

  cast two bonus votes on a proposal, instead of just one, at a cost of
15 points. the points are lost when it becomes publicly knowable that
the extra bonus vote was cast. This section has precedence over rule 317
with regards to how many bonus votes may be cast on a particular
proposal.

  cast an extra vote in a hearing or election, as thought they possessed
an evil ballot stuffier at a cost of 10 points.

**********

{{[ it would be interesting to have the 'cost' of these actions vary
with the amount of use each gets. For instance a action that has not
been performed in the last [insert a time frame here (calendar month?)]
would have its cost reduced (but not lower than its base value). An
action that had been performed twice in the last [insert another time
frame here] would have its cost increased. Of course this would
potentially be alot of acking and would require another office...}}]

- --------------7949FD4475AF9FAA311F3331--

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

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:38:01 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Beldin's Pants

Having received Beldin's Pants back from the Frobozz Potato Washing and
Dry Cleaning Company, Ackanomic Division, where I sent them to be
cleaned (who knows what the previous owner did in them - one can't be
too careful about these things), I put on Beldin' Pants (Left leg first
for those of you who were wondering).

As you would expect, being a fine example of the craftsman ship of their
time, they fit perfectly. Although the material causes a slight itch on
my right shin and the back of the knees are worn a little thin (it
appears the last occupant wore them back-to-front).

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:52:13 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

I have to say, I am not into the idea of points being exchangable/used for
anything.  I'd like to see them as simply a score rather than a commodity.

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: RFC
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 8:16 AM
> 
> Please comment on this. The costs are highly negotiable
> 
> *****************
> The uses of points
> 
> This rule defines ways in which points may be used. Other rules may
> define other uses.
> 
> If as a result of any of the following actions, a player's score would
> become negative then the attempt fails.
> 
> Only a player with a positive score may attempt the following actions.
> 
> A player may, as a public action :
> 
>   convert any positive number of es own points into 2.5 times as many
> Ackadollars rounded down. The points are deducted from es score and the
> ackadollars are transferred from the treasury. If the treasury does not
> contain enough $A the attempt fails.
> 
> {{[ currently 1 swingpoint is worth $A5 (as a chess piece discount) or 2
> 
> points -> thus 1 point would be worth 2.5 $A. This seems a little low to
> 
> me;
> it costs $A5000 to win and the magic number is currently 379 -> 1 point
> = $A13]}}
> 
>   change the weighted probability of a particular event, prior to its
> determination in the following manner :
>     1.  unambiguously stating the specific random event and the outcome
> to be re-weighted.
>     2.  Weather the particular outcome is to be made more likely or less
> 
> likely.
>     3.  stating a positive number of eir own points to be used.
> the points are deducted from eir score. For each point used the
> probability of the stated outcome occurring in the random event is
> modified in the desired manner by 1%.
> The probability of an event occurring may not be altered above 100% or
> below 1%.
> 
>   change the name of any active player to any legal ackanomic name at a
> cost of 5 points. A player may only perform this action at most once a
> month.
> 
> {{[ kinda like The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
> Really ]}}
> 
>   lengthen or shorten the term of an office that has one in the
> following manner :
>     1.  unambiguously specifying the office and its current encumbering
>     2.  weather the length of the term is to be increased or increased.
> For every 5 points used the term of office is increased or decreased by
> one day. A term of office may only be altered by a total of 14 days by
> this method.
> 
>  create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a scientist,
> 
> except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
> auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
> manner.
> 
>   announce eir intent to deliver an extra Frankenstein Part to the mad
> scientist in the current calendar week. 5 points are deducted from eir
> score. The player then has the option of submitting  a total of two
> parts during the current calendar week.
> 
>   cause the magic potato to be redistributed at a cost of 5 points.
> 
>   amend the rule Beldin's Pants as if e were Beldin's Tailor at a cost
> of 15 points. This may only be done once per player per cycle.
> 
>   may as a public action create a random Otzma card in their possession
> at a cost of 15 points. Only one Otzma card per player per month may be
> made in this manner.
> 
> 
> A player may also :
> 
>   cast two bonus votes on a proposal, instead of just one, at a cost of
> 15 points. the points are lost when it becomes publicly knowable that
> the extra bonus vote was cast. This section has precedence over rule 317
> 
> with regards to how many bonus votes may be cast on a particular
> proposal.
> 
>   cast an extra vote in a hearing or election, as thought they possessed
> 
> an evil ballot stuffier at a cost of 10 points.
> 
> **********
> 
> {{[ it would be interesting to have the 'cost' of these actions vary
> with the amount of use each gets. For instance a action that has not
> been performed in the last [insert a time frame here (calendar month?)]
> would have its cost reduced (but not lower than its base value). An
> action that had been performed twice in the last [insert another time
> frame here] would have its cost increased. Of course this would
> potentially be alot of acking and would require another office...}}]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:40:54 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hi, peoples.

> I return from vacation, feeling well-rested (As a non-voting player, I
> wasn't too concerned about announcing it).  
> 
> I change my status to Voting.
> 
> I request admission to SPAM, and hope that Slakko is willing to take me
> back into the fold...

I suggest we grant admission into SPAM to Fotunato.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:44:36 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> From: Vivian Norwood <[email-masked]>

> I have to say, I am not into the idea of points being exchangable/used
for
> anything.  I'd like to see them as simply a score rather than a
commodity.

Likewise.

> > From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
> >  create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a
scientist,
> > except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
> > auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
> > manner.

Especially this bit. A secret lab which does much the same thing costs
A$1000.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:34:17 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > From: Vivian Norwood <[email-masked]>
> 
> > I have to say, I am not into the idea of points being exchangable/used
> for
> > anything.  I'd like to see them as simply a score rather than a
> commodity.
> 
> Likewise.

Some of the changes are neat.  Not sure if they are worth it overall,
though.

> 
> Especially this bit. A secret lab which does much the same thing costs
> A$1000.

except that a secert lab is an org power, not an individual one, and a it
produces a gadget every month from now until the rule is changed.  

rufus
> 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.
> 

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:41:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

K 2 wrote:
> Please comment on this. The costs are highly negotiable

K 2 is well on the way to joining Karma in the class of people who cannot
control their e-mail programs.  Not only did K 2 send this to everybody
twice, but each copy contains the approx. 100 lines of RFC twice as well.

> The uses of points
> 
> This rule defines ways in which points may be used. Other rules may
> define other uses.

First, I agree with others that I prefer to see points left as a score,
not a commodity.  However, since others did not do so, I provide some
additional comments.

>   convert any positive number of es own points into 2.5 times as many
> Ackadollars rounded down. The points are deducted from es score and the
> ackadollars are transferred from the treasury. If the treasury does not
> contain enough $A the attempt fails.
> 
> {{[ currently 1 swingpoint is worth $A5 (as a chess piece discount) or 2
> points -> thus 1 point would be worth 2.5 $A. This seems a little low to me;
> it costs $A5000 to win and the magic number is currently 379 -> 1 point
> = $A13]}}

The key here is to realize that points are ephemeral -- they only last for
a cycle -- while Ackadollars build up for as long as you are a player.
K 2 is too new to remember this, but Malenkai is the one player in the
history of the game who essentially accumulated A$5000 without scams,
and used it to buy a win. (He did use a small scam to get an extra A$600
or so he needed with a Share My Expenses card.)

>   change the weighted probability of a particular event, prior to its
> determination in the following manner :
>     1.  unambiguously stating the specific random event and the outcome
> to be re-weighted.
>     2.  Weather the particular outcome is to be made more likely or less
> likely.
>     3.  stating a positive number of eir own points to be used.
> the points are deducted from eir score. For each point used the
> probability of the stated outcome occurring in the random event is
> modified in the desired manner by 1%.
> The probability of an event occurring may not be altered above 100% or
> below 1%.

This is problematic since it's not clear how the other probabilities
are to be altered when one probability is changed.

>  create a gadget at a cost of 10 points, in the same way as a scientist,
> except that the gadget is created in eir possession and need not be
> auctioned. Only one gadget per player per month may be made in this
> manner.

As was stated, this is way too cheap; it gives every moderately-active
player a nearly-free secret lab. 10 points is nothing over the course of
a month -- just two accepted modest proposals, or one non-modest one,
or 4 successful anti-votes. (consider 100 proposals in a typical month,
maybe 30 or so non-modest ones these days)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 19:32:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 495 Appeal Verdict

FALSE has been upheld on CFJ 495 with a 10 point penalty to the
appealer.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 495
  Subject: This CFJ is Invalid
Initiator: else..if
Submitted: 97-12-17 16:59
    Judge: K 2 (selected 97-12-17 19:23)
Judgement: FALSE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

This CFJ is false.

Reasoning:

[none]

K 2's Reasoning:

Now why did I get a sense of deja vu when I read this CFJ? Oh yes, CFJ
294.

Rule 213 states:
"Having accepted the appointment a Judge has exactly one week in which
to post an official Judgement."

This statement empowers the appointed judge (and only the appointed
judge) to pass Judgement on the assigned CFJ. Nothing else, is entitled
to do so. Judgement on a CFJ is the sole preserve of the appointed
judge. The purpose of a CFJ's statement is to be considered by the judge
and to have judgement passed on it, not to pass judgement on the CFJ
itself and the rules do not empower it to do so.
The statement of this CFJ attempts to pass judgement on this CFJ, an
action that it is not entitled to perform, and thus is in conflict with
the rules. As such I proclaim it false.

To finish off I will paraphrase CFJ 294:

    "Despite the pseudo-Godelian statement, the Judge is more than able
to deliver TRUE as the verdict of this CFJ.
     No rules require that CFJ's make logical sense or avoid creating
cognitive paradoxi. In fact, I briefly considered
     delivering a verdict of TRUE without comment just to prove this
point. The Judge's ability to deliver a TRUE
     verdict is in no way abridged, and so I judge this statement to be
FALSE.

     I CAN deliver a verdict of TRUE on this statement. I have chosen
not to. " [Guy Fawkes, CFJ 294, 19/9/96]

else..if's Appeal Reasoning:

        I disagree.  This differs from CFJ 294 in a fundemental way.  The
verdict on 294 depended on the face that the statement illegally forbade
the judge from judging true.  This statement does not prevent you from
making a decision, it makes a statement about the game state, and requests
a judgement of either TRUE or FALSE.

        The statement does not "pass judgement."  A statement, by
definition, has no binding effect.  It is a fact about the game state.
This statement postulates that the CFJ it is contained in is false.  It
remains up to the judge to determine the truth of the CFJ and the contained
statement.

        I disagree.  If the judge delivers a verdict of TRUE then e is
stating that the statement contained is TRUE, and therefore the CFJ is
FALSE.

        This is a paradox.  If the CFJ is FALSE, then its statement must be
FALSE.  Therefore the CFJ must not be FALSE.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Where CFJ statements are imprecise or otherwise open to interpretation, as
is the one in question here, the first task before the Court is to determine
the correct interpretation of the CFJ statement.  There are three alternatives
in this case:

(1) The statement claims that the CFJ's verdict is FALSE.
(2) The statement claims that it itself is false.
(3) The statement claims that the CFJ is false in some other way, i.e.
    not a CFJ, not legally filed, or such.

The Court rejects alternative (3) as unlikely, with the observation that
such an interpretation would inficate a verdict of FALSE in our opinion.
Moreover, the Court sees no circumstance indicating a verdict of TRUE
under this alternative in which the CFJ would be binding in any way,
or, indeed, exist at all.

The Court observes that alternative (2) would obligate us to return a
verdict of INVALID in accordance with Rule 211.

It is the Court's opinion that alternative (1) leads to a verdict of FALSE.
As K2 observed, the truth or falsehood of a CFJ statement is evaluated with
respect to the time the CFJ was submitted.  At the time this CFJ was
submitted it had not been judged yet, and it particularly had not been
judged FALSE.  The CFJ statement is therefore FALSE.

It is the opinion of the Court that alternative (1) is to be preferred.
The verdict of a CFJ seems a more representative measure of the truth
value of "this CFJ" as a whole than does the truth value of the CFJ
statement, where there is any difference.  If the submitter had wanted
the statement to be interpreted according to alternative (2), then he
could just as easilly have submitted it as "This statement is false."

The Court remarks that no alternative interpretation leaves us unable to
render a verdict.  This CFJ was thus never destined to do as else...if
hoped.

Appeal Penalty: 10 points for frivolously bothering the Justices.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 19:34:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 498 Verdict

CFJ 498 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 498
  Subject: Synod action
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-18 17:46
    Judge: K 2 (selected 97-12-20 15:21)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A Synod action cannot occur unless it has first been suggested on a public
mailing list.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Rule 1303, "Synod", does not describe a method by which the Synod takes
any action.  However, it does state that the Synod is an Organization.
Therefore, Rule 1005, "Organizational Actions", dictates how the Synod
shall perform actions.  This rule specifies that any action for an
organization must first be suggested by one of its members as a public
message.  

Any message not on a public mailing list is not a public message, and
hence without a message on a public mailing list suggesting an action for
the Synod to take, the Synod cannot take that action.

K 2's Reasoning:

**********
Rule 1303 states in section 6:

"
     6. All actions carried out by the Synod must be approved by the
Delegates. Each Delegate's vote is multiplied by the number of
non-vacationing members of eir Church. When there more votes in favor of
some action than against it the Synod is considered to support that
action. Churches whose Seats are unoccupied during the vote are said to
have abstained from the Vote.
"

Thus, according to Rule 1303, a Synod action involves :
    1.    a vote on the action by the Synod's Delegates.
    2.    If there are more votes in favour the Synod supports the
action.
    3.    The Yor-Delegate then acts on behalf of the Synod, in
accordance with the decisions of the Synod. (section 5b)

Rule 1303 does not, however, define a method by which 'some action'
comes under consideration by the Synod.

As a Unique Organization, however, the Synod is also governed by Rule
1005, which states in the second paragraph detailing organizational
actions, :

"
     First, some member of the Organization sends a public message
suggesting an action for the Organization to take.
"

In addition, Rule 373 States:

"
If the rules specify that a certain course of play is available to a
player or organization, but do not specify how that course of
play is to be taken, then that course of play is a public action, and it
is taken as described above.
"

In order for the Synod to support, and subsequently carry out an action,
it must first be proposed. Since Rule 1303 is silent on the matter, Rule
1005 has effect. Thus, a Synod action must first be suggested publicly.
(ie on a public mailing list)

****************
TRUE

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #438
*******************************