Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #442
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Thursday, January 1 1998       Volume 02 : Number 442

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 00:04:27 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Caped crusader election

The results of the Caped Crusader election are as follows:

ThinMan 5
else...if 6

Thus, else...if should be appointed Caped Crusader.  I either do this
myself, or direct someone else to do it, which ever is the correct course
of action.

rufus

the detailed voting:

for ThinMan
Malenkai
Malenkai's evil ballot stuffer
/dev/joe
ThinMan
Rex Mundi

for else...if
Vynd
Vynd's evil ballot stuffer
Balsamic Dragon
The Gingham Wearer
Alfvaen
rufus

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

Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 00:32:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 505 Verdict

CFJ 505 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 505
  Subject: Name games
Initiator: No other players
Submitted: 97-12-30 09:36
    Judge: Malenkai (selected 97-12-31 23:32)
Judgement: FALSE

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.

breadbox's 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.

Judge's Reasoning:

The lexical content of the two strings is identical, but the semantic
content is different.  This has come up before, and I discussed it at
length in CFJ 452.  The English language, as well as game custom, allows
allows this to happen.  Malenkai's Loophole works when there is no
semantic dissonance between the hijacker and hijackee, and fails in
all other cases.  In my judgement, this (potential) name change does
not change the customary interpretation of rule 1.  'No other players'
in the quoted passage of rule 1 is not ambiguous, it clearly means the
negative of the players listed in the preceeding sentence.  A name change
to 'No other players' is something else and can happen, as long as is
happens as described in the rules.

I will also note that 'No other players' in rule 1 is not naming an
entity, to tie off a potential loose end.

The Registrar acked the name change on the 29th, and the name, AFAIK,
as not been changed since, hence the statement I was asked to judge
is FALSE.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 07:02:38 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: gumball

today is the first thursday of the month, os I am going to take this
oppurtunity to chew the gumball.  It is with great relief that I note that
there is not a picture of a spice girl on the wrapper.  

rufus

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 12:21:42 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Name change (again)

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 09:12:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe

Balsamic Dragon did not report Phoebe's wisdom.
She has been found by Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 09:34:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 506 (/dev/joe)

CFJ 506 has been assigned to /dev/joe

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 506
  Subject: Voting on proposal 2545
Initiator: No other players
Submitted: 98-01-01 07:20
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected 98-01-01 09:34)
Judgement:

Statement:

When the two sentences below are taken as a single statement the second
sentence is true:

"breadbox voted present on proposal 2545. No other players and no
non-players voted present on proposal 2545."

Initiator's Reasoning:

I guess I just want to know.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 15:11:51 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 505 Verdict

> CFJ 505 has been judged FALSE.

> I will also note that 'No other players' in rule 1 is not naming an
> entity, to tie off a potential loose end.

I'm still not necessarily sure that I agree with this but I'm not going to
appeal because I realise that game custom is strongly against me. I would
however be interested to know how you decided that the above quote was
true.

The Gingham Wearer (soon). 

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

Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 10:50:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 505 Verdict

> > I will also note that 'No other players' in rule 1 is not naming an
> > entity, to tie off a potential loose end.
> 
> I'm still not necessarily sure that I agree with this but I'm not going to
> appeal because I realise that game custom is strongly against me. I would
> however be interested to know how you decided that the above quote was
> true.

The same way that I would judge that the noun phrase 'the above
quote' in the above quote is not an entity.  Acka is not a formal
system, so humans have to supply semantics to all of the language
fragments to the best of their ability, using the meta-rules of 
the English language and the meta-rules of linguistic interpretation,
provided the rules do not overload the fragment in question with 
another meaning, or provided previous custom or tradition does not
do so either (which in reality is the rules overloading the meaning
there too, becuase the rules inforce non-intuitive, but customary
interpretation, when appropriate.)

I saw no evidence that the phrase was overloaded, nor had a nonexistant
or a previous customary interpretation.   It had to mean *something*
when it was written.  As in the case of other Malenkai's Loophole 
cases, had it been demonstrated, or had I judged, that the phrase
had *no* semantic meaning at the time, your scam would have worked.  

There have been many cases of this before, and I believe I documented
some of them in CFJ 452.  Rules 101 and 215 require that I honor
this custom in the absense of rules that countermand it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 10:56:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 506 (/dev/joe)

> "breadbox voted present on proposal 2545. No other players and no
> non-players voted present on proposal 2545."

breadbox, please post the updated results for proposal 2545 based on
CFJ 504 FALSE.  While I don't expect that either breadbox or No other
players had his vote proxied to the other, I should know before returning
a judgement.

I accept this CFJ.

/dev/joe

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #442
*******************************