Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #441
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, December 31 1997     Volume 02 : Number 441

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:29:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fw: INP 357

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Latest Proposal from Internomic:
> > 
> > ============================================================
> > Proposal 357
> > Proposed by Agora
> > 
> > Rule 215 shall be amended by changing the text which currently
> > reads "Ackanomic," to read "New Rishonnomic, Ackanomic,"
> > 
> > ============================================================
> 
> Ambassador's notes:  Of course, the rule already has New Rishonnomic in it
> and there are no outstanding proposals that I know of that would change
> that fact, so I'm not really sure what Agora is trying to do.  If this is
> passed, New Rishonnomic will appear twice.
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

A recent CFJ ruled that New Rishonnomic is not a voting member of
Internomic. 
They are trying to make it one. The status of New Rishonomic (one n) is
still unknown.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 07:32:14 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Goin' to the Chapel...

Thank you, Father Rex (or whatever the proper title is).  Thank you
also, Founder Alfvaen.  I will strive to be a credit to my new-found
non-state-enforced Religion.

>----------
>From: 	Gavin M. Doig[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, December 30, 1997 3:34 PM
>To: 	[email-masked]
>Subject: 	Re: Acka: Goin' to the Chapel...
>
>> > This is to publicly petition Alfvaen, the founder of the Church of
>> > Azpiazu, for acceptance into their ranks.  
>> 
>> As Founder of the Church of Azpiazu, I officially welcome Fortunato
>> into our Church.
>
>As the senior (and, indeed, only) Priest of the Church of Azpiazu, I too
>welcome Fortunato.
>
>Rex Mundi.
>

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 08:34:15 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fw: INP 357

- ----------
> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Acka: Fw: INP 357
> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 3:29 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> > Latest Proposal from Internomic:
> > > 
> > > ============================================================
> > > Proposal 357
> > > Proposed by Agora
> > > 
> > > Rule 215 shall be amended by changing the text which currently
> > > reads "Ackanomic," to read "New Rishonnomic, Ackanomic,"
> > > 
> > > ============================================================
> > 
> > Ambassador's notes:  Of course, the rule already has New Rishonnomic in
it
> > and there are no outstanding proposals that I know of that would change
> > that fact, so I'm not really sure what Agora is trying to do.  If this
is
> > passed, New Rishonnomic will appear twice.
> > 
> > Balsamic Dragon
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> 
> A recent CFJ ruled that New Rishonnomic is not a voting member of
> Internomic. 
> They are trying to make it one. The status of New Rishonomic (one n) is
> still unknown.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

Yeah, but why didn't they remove the reference to the first New (nn) and/or
add a reference to the New (n)?  I am working on a proposal called the
Scriviner's Rule which would be something like our Spelling Bee and which
might clear this kind of thing up.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:22:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 504 Verdict

CFJ 504 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 504
  Subject: I Think I May Have Screwed Up
Initiator: breadbox
Submitted: 97-12-30 01:16
    Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 97-12-30 08:59)
Judgement: FALSE
1
Statement:

A vacationing player who has not voted on a proposal may still cast a
vote on said proposal if they have a Proxy.

breadbox's Reasoning:

A player who is on vacation is still permitted to vote, in a sense.
That is to say, they may not send votes to the Tabulator, but any
votes submitted prior to the vacation are still counted. Exactly how
this works is not entirely clear, admittedly. Rule 255 says that a
vacationing player is not an active player, but then later says that
any votes cast before going on vacation are still counted. Since the
later sentence takes precedence, I have usually interpreted this to
mean that they are considered active for the purposes of Tabulating
that particular proposal.

Rule 106 defines how Proxies work. The upshot of it is that it is
essentially impossible for a player with a Proxy to not cast a vote
(ignoring for the moment the issue of players being on vacation).
Note that the process of casting a proxied vote only applies to
"Voting Players". Also note that the language of Rule 106 is such that
it is the player's vote which is being cast. Finally, note that the
time that these proxied votes are cast is "the instant before the end
of the voting period".

So, is this proxied casting of a vote considered to be a vote cast
with respect to Rule 255? Originally I though it was, but now I'm
beginning to think I may have been wrong.

As a final complication, Rule 255 takes precedence over Rule 106.

If I am wrong, and this CFJ is ruled False, then a vacationing player
cannot cast votes via Proxy. This means that the voting results
released for proposals 2538 through 2544 are incorrect, as Slakko has
authorized Balsamic Dragon to be his proxy, and I counted him as
voting on all of these proposals. Not only will this affect his score,
but the change will cause proposal 2540 to have been accepted.

Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 255 states:

"The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off
vacation and send public messages."

Rule 106 states:

"At the instant before the end of the voting period of a proposal, all
Voting Players that have not cast a vote on the proposal, and have a Proxy,
will cast a vote identical to the vote cast by their Proxy (if their Proxy
cast a vote) on the proposal"

Note that the player eirself casts the vote, not that the vote is cast for
em. This is something that vacationing players are not allowed to do.
Therefore an attempt to cast votes by any vacationing player fails. Any
doubt is removed by the section in rule 255 stating:

"This rule has precedence over any rule which conflicts in whole or in
part, with any of its provisions."

Therefore I judge false.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:24:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 485 Appeal Verdict

FALSE has been upheld on CFJ 485

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 485
  Subject: Similar to CFJ 394
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-12 17:21
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected 97-12-12 19:32)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

A Judge delivering a verdict of TRUE on a CFCJ whose statement was "Slakko
has committed a Crime" is a player action affecting the game
      state which appears equally legal and illegal.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Liar's Paradox.  Neither true nor false implies false implies true implies
false implies true....

This is a Paradox Win CFJ.

Note that it is similar to CFJ 394, but excludes the possibility of a
stable verdict other than true or false.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

If I had the luxurious time of a normal CFJ I would be much more
long-winded, but since I'm playing Hubert against the initiator
I'll be brief.

Slakko (implicitly) contends that his recently published self-referential
statement is of indeterminate truth, as treating it as false makes it
appear true, and treating it as true makes it appear false, and treating
it as "neither true nor false" also makes it appear false.

CFJ 394 provided the game custom that "untrue" in the newspaper rule
is interpreted as "false".  I would rather interpret it as "not true",
which can be different from "false" with respect to self-referential
sentences like the one in question, but under either interpretation,
the legality of Slakko's refusal is determinable.

"Is the statement false?" the game asks the statement. No.
Thus the rule which makes the refusal to publish a retraction does not
apply.

[In the interpretation I would prefer, the game asks "Is the statement
true?" No. Therefore it is "not true", or untrue, and the refusal to
post the retraction is a crime.  If there is interest, I may submit a
proposal which explicitly adds my interpretation of "untrue" to the rules,
along with enough additional commentary to head off attempts like this
before they even get started.]

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The statement of this CFJ is clearly false. Consider, for example,
that the hypothetical CFCJ might be accusing Slakko of committing
Zuriti'ili.

However, even if we set aside this possibility, the statement is still
False. It is not illegal for a judgement to be the "wrong" judgment.
When the Supreme Court overturns a judgment, that does not mean that
the original judge has broken the rules, or has committed a Crime, no
matter how wrongheaded the verdict may have been.

It is presumed that a judge will make every effort to return a verdict
that is appropriate to, and consistent with, the rules and game state,
and that its ramifications do not invite cognitive dissonance.
However, the rules do not forbid the judge from doing otherwise - in a
very real sense, they cannot. (The Court refers the interested reader
to the appeal reasoning of CFJ 434 for elaboration on this issue.)

Penalty to the appealer: 1 point.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:33:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 505 (Malenkai)

Malenkai has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 505
  Subject: Name games
Initiator: 
Submitted: 97-12-30 09:36
    Judge: Malenkai (selected 97-12-31 23:32)
Judgement:

Statement:

The name of the player using the e-mail address [email-masked] is
"The Gingham Wearer".

Initiator's Reasoning:

There are two possibilities here, he is either called "The Gingham Wearer"
or he is called "No other players". Therefore, to judge this CFJ it is
necessary to ascertain whether his attempted name change took place. Rule 1
states:

"The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary
interpretation of this rule to be changed."

It also states:

"Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe,
Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired). No
other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic
(retired)."

I believe that had the attempted name change to "No other players" occurred
then it would have altered the game state so as to change the customary
interpretation of rule 1, i.e. if the first quote from rule 1 did not exist
then the name change would have succeeded and "No other players" would have
become an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired).

I would also like to point out that this is significantly different to CFJ
452 in that this is a noun phase being replaced by a proper noun whereas
CFJ 452 was a proper noun replacing another proper noun.

The difference here is that a proper noun is unambiguous but a noun phrase
always contains some ambiguity due to the imprecise nature of the English
language. It is my belief that the interpretation of the phrase with the
least ambiguity should be the one adopted.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 20:50:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 505 (Malenkai)

I wish to add the following comments to CFJ 505 (btw, can the CotC let
us know the initiator?) as Bronze Torch Reasoning:

It is interesting that the initiator mentions CFJ 452 in eir
reasoning, because the original judge for that CFJ (coincidentally the
same judge for this CFJ) discussed this exact situation - a noun
phrase being usurped by a proper noun - and showed why it would not
succeed. The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, explicitly acknowledged
and agreed with this assessment.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:55:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 505 (Malenkai)

> I wish to add the following comments to CFJ 505 (btw, can the CotC let
> us know the initiator?) as Bronze Torch Reasoning:

The initiator's name is the subject of the CFJ, and thus is in doubt,
thus cannot be specified without presupposing a verdict.  Since
the name rule requires all official business to use the acka name,
it is not possible unless it is posted in 2 threads :)  Since you
now know the initiator is the player whose name is brought into
doubt by the CFJ, that won't be necessary...

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:58:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 499 (Malenkai)

CFJ 499 has been assigned to Malenkai, as two-star deadbeated.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 499
  Subject: Chrome streaks
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-12-18 18:58
    Judge: two-star (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (assigned 97-12-31 23:58)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Malenkai received 15 points for the Chrome Streak which included
Proposal 2388.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

As originally harfed, the Chrome Streak stretched from 2379 to 2390.
Malenkai had three Proposals in the Streak: 2380, 2381, and 2390,
and thus received 15 bonus points upon the announcement of the
Streak.

Slakko's allegation is that since Proposal 2389 was Null, that Malenkai
could not have received bonus points from Proposal 2390.  His argument
goes something like this(apologies for any misconstrual):

Rule 207, Section VII, states:

   VII. Null Proposals
   
   The above provisions notwithstanding, if an accepted proposal does not
   become a new rule or generate at least one valid effect under Rule
   103, no points are scored by any player as a result of that proposal
   being accepted, the preceding provisions of this rule notwithstanding.
   Such proposals, and only such proposals, are "Null Proposals".

Proposal 2390 is only in the Chrome Streak as a result of Proposal 2389
being accepted.  Therefore, Malenkai should not get any bonus points
from Proposal 2390's presence in the Streak.

I hold that this reasoning is absurd, and could be carried to ridiculous
lengths if _any_ points from _any_ result of a Null Proposal being
accepted were nullified.  Of course, absurdity is not necessary a
compelling counterargument...

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #441
*******************************