Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #463
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Wednesday, January 14 1998      Volume 02 : Number 463

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:31:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 509 Verdict

> Ah, the two big Hubert situations <nod knowingly, look very sage>.
> 
> ... Okay, okay, I have _no_ idea what the 'two big Hubert situations'
> are.  Could someone please explain / point somewhere I could find out,
> please?

A "Hubert situation" is our term for a situation where two or more
players are racing to be first to post something to the public forum,
usually ending up with someone picking through the email headers to
figure out who was actually first.

The term comes from a treasure hunt created by snowgod (aka Mr.
Lunatic Fringe), which required the treasure-seeker to post the word
"Hubert" to the public forum three days in a row. On the third day Guy
Fawkes and /dev/joe both posted very close to midnight, and they
actually had to check their computers against the atomic clock server
to figure out which one was first.

Something similar to this happened a couple of months later with The
Machine that Goes *ping*. (See CFJs 324 and 371.) ThinMan created
Rule 371 as a better way to deal with these kinds of questions.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:50:04 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 513 (Red Barn)

I feel that the operative portion of that text is not the word players, =
but the=20
phrase "players who were"  at the time malenkai was a palyer so he IS a =
member.  This is how I read it, and that is why I called for a judgement =
on it.
If I am proved wrong, wich is fairly likely, then I will interpret it =
however the=20
judgement says I should.  Otherwise I am entiteled to my opinion.  I do =
see=20
your point as an alternate, anf equally valid, possible interpretation.

- ----------
From:  The Gingham Wearer
Sent:  Tuesday, January 13, 1998 4:03 PM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: Acka: CFJ 513 (Red Barn)

> Im sure the last part of rule 101 is all fine and good but rule 1 has =
a
much=20
> longer paragraph about guiding play, and a lower ordinal number.
> I know you know this is true.

I disagree but argue that it is all irrelevant the main bit of my =
argument
is this, the rest was included just to make sure.

The Gingham Wearer.

> "But doesn't this lead to a paradox?" I hear you say. By rule 256 if
> Malenkai did leave the game then e becomes an undead and hence a
> non-player. By rule 1 e would therefore NOT be an Evil Overlord. The
first
> quote from rule 1 includes states "Those players who were..." note =
this
is
> not "Those who were members..." It specifically states PLAYERS. =
Malenkai
is
> no longer a player so this does not apply to him. Even if the rule =
failed
> to specify players I still believe that Malenkai would not be an Evil
> Overlord since the later section from the rule should take precedence.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:53:46 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Can we slow down for a few days please

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 1. Vynd has filed an IP against Malenkai for the position of Speaker,
>    but only in the CFJ 513 TRUE thread. So either Malenkai or Alfvaen
>    is Acting Speaker. There is no official Speaker in either thread.

I retract my call for the impeachment of Malenkai from the office of
Speaker.  This was always my intention if Malenkai resumed the duties of
his offices.  While we probably need to discuss things a bit further, I
think Malenkai resigning from his offices would solve our most serious
problems.  Hopefully we can resolve this whole business quickly enough so
that he can get back to his life very soon.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:23:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Contempt

Since breadbox has given me the money, I hereby pay the A$100 fine
to avoid going to Gaol in Contempt.

I just hope that Rex Mundi can pay eir A$25 and go to the Gaol to
paint eir murals...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bobby McFerrin:The Voice
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
I need something to take for my kleptomania.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:02:52 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: my status

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> I'm not sure how the argument goes that I am still
> a player, but if it is judged that I am, I shall stay
> subscribed to the mailing lists (as it is a crime to do
> otherwise).

Some people seem to feel that Rule 1 prevents Evil Overlords from leaving
the game.  Only the players who were members of Vulcan on date X are Evil
Overlords, no other players and (the important part) no non-players are
Evil Overlords.  And then all the precedence stuff.  If you leav ethe
game, you are no longer a player.  But Rule 1 says youa re an Evil
Overlord, and no non-players are Evil Overlords, so you couldn't have left
the game, because the game state cannot be altered so as to change the
interpretation of Rule 1.  or something to that effect.

> 
> Also, if I remain, I would like to remain CotC.  I
> was always pretty good at that one (note that the
> IP can be retracted if you want).  As for the other
> offices, which is easier for you folks, to impeach me
> or for me to resign?
> 

Well, I've already retracted my IP, so you if you're still a player then
you are the full-fledged Speaker.  If when you say remain you mean for
awhile, then I imagine no one would object to you remaining as Clerk of
the Court.  Obviously if you aren't staying then we'd best get it into new
hands as soon as feasible.  In any event, I believe all the IPs against
you were intended to clear you out of offices that it looked like you
wouldn't be carrying out, and not out of some desire to get back at you
now that you're gone (no matter what I may have said...)

> Malenkai
> 

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:17:20 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:mess

I would like to apologize to all of acka in general, and specifically to =
Malenkai, Alfvaen, and Breadbox, for any of this mess I may have caused. =
 I felt that this was something better resolved sooner than later.  If =
however all of you have chosen to blame slakko then I will join you in =
blaming him for the current mess.
		Bill the Pirate King.

p.s.  I also apologize to any other officer who this is making a lot of =
trouble for in case I missed some.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:20:36 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (else...if)

In the thread(s) where I am Acting Speaker, I hereby announce that
Calvin N Hobbes has failed to post Phoebe's wisdom, and she has been
found by else...if.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gloria Estefan:Cuts Both Ways
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
The apotheosis of the amanuensis

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:29:11 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel (Vynd)

> Despicable comments, I'm sure you'll agree. I was delighted when else...if
> got in touch with me informing me of eir intent to challenge Vynd to a
> duel. As eir second I convey unto Vynd this challenge from else...if on the
> subject of eir distasteful actions and comments about proposal 2561. This
> matter must be settled on the field of honour. I await the response from
> Vynd's second.

As Vynd's Second, I must ask else...if's Second to convey to em this
response:

Vynd expressly told me, in a private confabulation, that e has been
polishing eir swords, pistols, daggers, stilettos, pumps, spoons, stamens,
and double-handled eggplant wedging utensils in expectation of just such a
challenge.  "With the demise of the Evil Twin, it may be time for the rise
of the Enemy," e said with a laugh, wedging an eggplant with an offhanded
twist of his wrist.  "Anyway, convey to that banna-eating scoundrel that
I accept eir challenge, on the field of Ghost."

So that seems to be it.  If nobody else cares to referee the Duel, I
am, well required by the Rules to do it, but only after seven days;
still, I will leap forward sooner if necessary.  I am about to be
embroiled in a Duel of my own, though...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gloria Estefan:Cuts Both Ways
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
A side show; a smoke-screen; a passing landscape

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:32:20 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka:mess

> I would like to apologize to all of acka in general, and specifically to
> Malenkai, Alfvaen, and Breadbox, for any of this mess I may have caused.
> I felt that this was something better resolved sooner than later.
> If however all of you have chosen to blame slakko then I will join you
> in blaming him for the current mess.

As has been said, it _is_ better to get this mess out of the way now,
rather than discover it a week and a half from now and _then_ have to
sort out the fact that all of the Speakerly and Clerk of the Courtly
actions have failed, not to mention being Crimes.

But yeah, it's Slakko's fault as much as yours.  Or maybe it's Red
Barn's fault for ruling TRUE on CFJ 513, since FALSE would've allowed us
to go on playing for a little while longer...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gloria Estefan:Cuts Both Ways
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
An apple every eight hours will keep three doctors away.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:46:56 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Well, Indeed

> Very bright of the Vulcans to make it impossible for _them_ to amend Rule
> 1 when it needs fixing...you'd need a ukase to fix this one.

That was too big of a loophole.  You could just nuke the rule by passing
a proposal that says "Vulcan changes rule 1 to read ..." This kind of
thing wasn't even considered when we were drafting the final version of
the rule -- either we'd still really have total power, or the rule would
be easily removable, or else even we can't amend it.

/dev/joe
Vacationing Evil Overlord (retired)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:41:17 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Can we slow down for a few days please

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > 1. Vynd has filed an IP against Malenkai for the position of Speaker,
> >    but only in the CFJ 513 TRUE thread. So either Malenkai or Alfvaen
> >    is Acting Speaker. There is no official Speaker in either thread.
> 
> I retract my call for the impeachment of Malenkai from the office of
> Speaker.  This was always my intention if Malenkai resumed the duties of
> his offices.  While we probably need to discuss things a bit further, I
> think Malenkai resigning from his offices would solve our most serious
> problems.  Hopefully we can resolve this whole business quickly enough so
> that he can get back to his life very soon.

In the thread where my IP happened, I retract my call for impeachment of
Malenkai from the office of Clerk of the Court.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:44:53 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 513 (K 2)

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, K 2 wrote:

> Interesting, if I accept this I _have_ to judge it FALSE...

Actually, no.  This particular one was distributed by Malenkai.
So if you accept it you have to judge it TRUE.

> This situation is rapidly starting to look paradoxical.

Yeah.  Don'tcha just love Rule 1?

> I accept this CFJ.
> 
> DISCLAIMER
> my acceptance of this CFJ in no way predisposes me to a verdict
> 
> 
> > Call For Judgement 513
> > Subject: Malenkai's playerhood II
> > Initiator: Slakko
> > Submitted: 98-01-13 05:10
> > Judge: K 2 (selected 98-01-13 20:26)
> > Judgement:
> >
> > Statement:
> >
> > Malenkai is a player of Ackanomic.
- --
Duncan "This is getting silly, but it has to" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:56:37 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: In Contempt

I thank breadbox for the gift of A$100, and I pay it to the Treasury, so I
am no longer in contempt.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> 1) I hereby apologize to my fellow Committee members for not
> fulfilling my promise to report the results in time. (The deadline
> passed about four hours ago.) FWIW, the vote was unanimously for
> "inane"; I believe Crackfoo was the only one who abstained.
> 
> 2) I am paying A$100 to the Treasury. I am no longer in Contempt.
> 
> 3) I am hereby destroying the following trinkets:
> 
> A$30   Manx Cat
> A$15   Military Laser
> A$33   Bug Bashing Implement
> A$77   Mister Cwm's Bench
> A$40   Fon-due Set
> A$100  Stormbringer
> A$29   The Public Ally
> 
> for a total of A$324.
> 
> 4) I am hereby gifting Balsamic Dragon, K 2, Rex Mundi, Crackfoo,
> Alfvaen, and Niccolo Flychuck with A$100 each. I suggest that they pay
> this money to the Treasury ASAP if they don't want to goto Gaol for
> three days.
> 
> 5) I also offer an apology to Alfvaen for making morework for him with
> this message.
> 
> breadbox
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:37:36 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

The whole CFJ IMHO comes down to which one of the following two
interpretations of the first sentence of Rule 1 is correct.

> Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe,
> Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

Interpretation one:

(players) and (members of Vulcan on August 28 1997) => EOoA(r)

Interpretation two:

(players and members of Vulcan) on August 28 1997 => EOoA(r)

It's a hell of a job determining which of these two is correct.
Interpretation one means there is no conflict in Rule 1, so Malenkai may
have been able to leave the game.

Interpretation two means that Malenkai could not leave the game as eir
leaving would create a conflict in Rule 1.

I don't envy the job the Supreme Court has on this one.
It could come down to a random determination of the correct meaning.
Although I wonder what happens if the random determination in each thread
points to the other thread....

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:19:23 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Well, Indeed

>Very bright of the Vulcans to make it impossible for _them_ to amend Rule
>1 when it needs fixing...you'd need a ukase to fix this one.

I am quite certain that it would have been unacceptable for Vulcan to
leave a clause in Rule 1 that would have allowed it to modify rule 1.
Indeed, that would have constituted Vulcan remaining in power.  In any
case, my current opinion is that nothing in Rule 1 prevented Malenkai
from quitting the game.  Moreover, even if he was prevented from quitting,
he can be put on vacation and eventually on ice once the offices
business is cleared up.  The occasional situation like this is, IMO, one
of the things that make Nomic enjoyable.

ThinMan
A "ukase"?

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:37:01 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Gaol

I don't right now recall whether CnH has to be let out by me or whether
he automatically gets out at the end of his Gaol term, but by this message
I release him from Gaol if he is still there.  I hope he enjoyed his stay.

Whether or not I just released him, I am pleased to announce that CnH is
no longer in Gaol.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:47:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  acka:mess

Bill the Pirate King wrote:

>I would like to apologize to all of acka in general, and specifically =
>to Malenkai, Alfvaen, and Breadbox, for any of this mess I may have =
>caused.  I felt that this was something better resolved sooner than =
>later.

I will go on the assumption that you didn't realize the effect that calling
this particular CFJ would have.  If you had, then it would have been much
more convenient to try to close the thread split _first_ and then call the
CFJ.  I.e., contact Malenkai and tell him "there is some question as to
whether or not you successfully quit.  Would you please resign the CotC
office so that we can more easilly determine the question?"

>  If however all of you have chosen to blame slakko then I will =
>join you in blaming him for the current mess.

I'm loving this, except that I am not happy about the potential for keeping
Malenkai in the game against his wishes.  I am more than happy to give you
both credit for this situation.

>p.s.  I also apologize to any other officer who this is making a lot of =
>trouble for in case I missed some.

How gallant.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:51:24 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: In Contempt

> 4) I am hereby gifting Balsamic Dragon, K 2, Rex Mundi, Crackfoo,
> Alfvaen, and Niccolo Flychuck with A$100 each. I suggest that they pay
> this money to the Treasury ASAP if they don't want to go to Gaol for
> three days.
> 

Being not entirely familiar with the relevant Rules, I will, nevertheless,
take breadbox's kind offer and send the A$100 given to me to the Treasury
with a little note attached that says "I don't want to go to jail!"

Whilst I am writing, I also would like to vote yes on all impeachment
proceedings currently up for voting.

Balsamic Dragon

ps.  I have already submitted to Alfvaen my desire to be Clerk of the
Court.  I'm not sure if this needs to be made public, but with all this
confusion I just wanted to remind people (malenkai) that there are people
who will be happy to do the job!

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:53:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 513 (K 2)

Slakko wrote,

>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, K 2 wrote:
>
>> Interesting, if I accept this I _have_ to judge it FALSE...
>
>Actually, no.  This particular one was distributed by Malenkai.
>So if you accept it you have to judge it TRUE.

Actually, no, he can render whichever verdict he believes to be correct.
A verdict of FALSE, however, means that it isn't really a CFJ.  So what?

>> This situation is rapidly starting to look paradoxical.

Godelian, perhaps, but not paradoxical.  And it _can_ be sorted out.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:06:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:mess

> I would like to apologize to all of acka in general, and
> specifically to Malenkai, Alfvaen, and Breadbox, for any of this
> mess I may have caused.  I felt that this was something better
> resolved sooner than later.  If however all of you have chosen to
> blame slakko then I will join you in blaming him for the current
> mess.

Please, please, don't apologize. This is what nomic is all about. As
others have said, far better that this is dealt with now than (say) a
week from now.

In case people have taken my messages the wrong way, I am not upset.
(Admittedly, it's disconcerting that Malenkai is currently trapped in
this game, but this should be quickly resolvable, now that the IPs
have been retracted.)

I am most certainly not upset. I am however, a little frazzled. It's
exactly these sorts of complications that make nomic fun - for me,
anyway - because it's challenging, and difficult. On the other hand,
RL does not always give one the free time necessary to dig in and deal
with the situation to the level it requires.

All I am asking is for players to recognize that we are currently in a
thread split, and to take that into consideration when doing anything
that might require extra harfing. I'm farther behind in my duties than
I ever have been, and I want to dig myself out as quickly as possible,
so we can all enjoy the game to its fullest.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:13:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

>> Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe,
>> Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).
> 
> Interpretation one:
> 
> (players) and (members of Vulcan on August 28 1997) => EOoA(r)
> 
> Interpretation two:
> 
> (players and members of Vulcan) on August 28 1997 => EOoA(r)
> 
> It's a hell of a job determining which of these two is correct.
> Interpretation one means there is no conflict in Rule 1, so Malenkai may
> have been able to leave the game.
> 
> Interpretation two means that Malenkai could not leave the game as eir
> leaving would create a conflict in Rule 1.

I think it's pretty clear that interpretation two was the intention.
Interpretation one, in my mind, is a bit of a stretch. If the sentence
began "All players" or even "The players", I could see it. But "Those
players" seems to me to point directly at the following clause (I
forget the grammatical name for that).

Still, I'm not convinced that Interpretation must necessarily lead to
Malenkai being forced to remain a player.

> I don't envy the job the Supreme Court has on this one.

Excuse me? The verdict hasn't even been returned yet, and you're
already assuming its appeal is as a foregone conclusion? Show some
faith in the poor judge.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:46:01 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma! (2)

I announce that an Otzma Day will start at 5pm Acka time (10pm GMT) on
this coming Saturday, January 17th.

Please note this is 10 days and approximately 25 minutes after the last
Otzma day finished.

- --
Duncan "Otzma Speed 9" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:28:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposals

I believe I have completed harfing the latest proposals. It appears
that none of them were altered in outcome by altering Malenkai's
vote. (Which must be somewhat depressing for Malenkai.)

It took three TMBG albums to finish harfing all of that....

If you care about your vote, by the way, I would suggest going over
the reports briefly and making sure your vote looks correct to you. I
noticed one mistake after I sent them off - for one proposal I
accidentally listed Red Barn as vacationing instead of abstaining.
Since such a mistake only matters for determining quorum, I let it
pass. (Which reminds me, I would like to thank everyone for being so
diligent about voting. We haven't had to think much about quorum for
quite some time. Keep it up.)

Finally, I am frobbing the voting queue.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:35:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposals

I am tweaking the voting queue.

I thank everyone profusely for exercising restraint over the past few
days. I am now declaring the Voting Queue to be back in business. I
would request that everyone continue to take it a little easy - maybe
limit yourself to one or two a day. I just don't want to get flooded
all at once with everyone's pent-up submissions from the past week.

Finally, I encourage you all to vote yes on proposal 2595. We may be
in crisis mode, but a birthday is a birthday, dammit. We've come a
long way, and we deserve a little party.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:59:08 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

> >> Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe,
> >> Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic
(retired).
> > 
> > Interpretation one:
> > 
> > (players) and (members of Vulcan on August 28 1997) => EOoA(r)
> > 
> > Interpretation two:
> > 
> > (players and members of Vulcan) on August 28 1997 => EOoA(r)
> > 
> > It's a hell of a job determining which of these two is correct.
> > Interpretation one means there is no conflict in Rule 1, so Malenkai
may
> > have been able to leave the game.
> > 
> > Interpretation two means that Malenkai could not leave the game as eir
> > leaving would create a conflict in Rule 1.
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that interpretation two was the intention.
> Interpretation one, in my mind, is a bit of a stretch. If the sentence
> began "All players" or even "The players", I could see it. But "Those
> players" seems to me to point directly at the following clause (I
> forget the grammatical name for that).
> 
> Still, I'm not convinced that Interpretation must necessarily lead to
> Malenkai being forced to remain a player.
> 
> > I don't envy the job the Supreme Court has on this one.
> 
> Excuse me? The verdict hasn't even been returned yet, and you're
> already assuming its appeal is as a foregone conclusion? Show some
> faith in the poor judge.

Firstly, the intentions of Vulcan when making rule 1 have nothing to do
with it. Only the actual text of the rule matters.

Next, I disagree about the interpretation that should be taken. My opinion
is option one, but I don't doubt that that will come down to the
interpretation made by the judge, supreme court or dice server :-)

I agree that whatever the interpretation, it doesn't really matter. I
believe that Malenkai left the game as normal. This then causes a potential
problem in rule 1. Since the bit about no non-players comes after the bit
about members of Vulcan, it takes precedence and Malenkai is not an evil
overlord.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:56:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

>> I think it's pretty clear that interpretation two was the intention.
>> Interpretation one, in my mind, is a bit of a stretch. If the sentence
>> began "All players" or even "The players", I could see it. But "Those
>> players" seems to me to point directly at the following clause (I
>> forget the grammatical name for that).
>> 
>> Still, I'm not convinced that Interpretation must necessarily lead to
>> Malenkai being forced to remain a player.
> 
> Firstly, the intentions of Vulcan when making rule 1 have nothing to do
> with it. Only the actual text of the rule matters.

Of course.

> Next, I disagree about the interpretation that should be taken. My
> opinion is option one, but I don't doubt that that will come down to
> the interpretation made by the judge, supreme court or dice server
> :-)

I don't see how you come to that. If I said to you, "Those files I was
describing to you yesterday are on my ftp site," and if it turned out
that only three of the four were actually there because I had
accidentally deleted one of them, wouldn't you think that my statement
was a bit incorrect?

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:59:03 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> Firstly, the intentions of Vulcan when making rule 1 have nothing to do
> with it. Only the actual text of the rule matters.
> 
> Next, I disagree about the interpretation that should be taken. My opinion
> is option one, but I don't doubt that that will come down to the
> interpretation made by the judge, supreme court or dice server :-)
> 
> I agree that whatever the interpretation, it doesn't really matter. I
> believe that Malenkai left the game as normal. This then causes a potential
> problem in rule 1. Since the bit about no non-players comes after the bit
> about members of Vulcan, it takes precedence and Malenkai is not an evil
> overlord.

The "fact" that it takes precedence is stated in a later Rule.  This later
Rule therefore attempts to override part of Rule 1.  Rule 1 therefore
strikes it down, and hence we cannot determine which of the two statements
would overrule each other in the event of a conflict.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:12:42 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

> > Next, I disagree about the interpretation that should be taken. My
> > opinion is option one, but I don't doubt that that will come down to
> > the interpretation made by the judge, supreme court or dice server
> > :-)
> 
> I don't see how you come to that. If I said to you, "Those files I was
> describing to you yesterday are on my ftp site," and if it turned out
> that only three of the four were actually there because I had
> accidentally deleted one of them, wouldn't you think that my statement
> was a bit incorrect?

I don't think you quite understood my point, probably because it wasn't
worded very well. What I meant was that if I were asked to judge the
relevant CFJ my interpretation would be (players) and (members of Vulcan on
August 27 (?) 1997). I don't see how rational argument can help here, it's
down to interpretation. I don't wish to bash on saying "This is my opinion
and anyone who disagrees is stupid". As I say, that's my opinion, it's not
your opinion but neither of our opinions matter, it's the opinion of the
judge that is important. I know this seems a little garbled but I'm having
trouble describing it better.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:25:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

>> I don't see how you come to that. If I said to you, "Those files I was
>> describing to you yesterday are on my ftp site," and if it turned out
>> that only three of the four were actually there because I had
>> accidentally deleted one of them, wouldn't you think that my statement
>> was a bit incorrect?
> 
> I don't think you quite understood my point, probably because it wasn't
> worded very well. What I meant was that if I were asked to judge the
> relevant CFJ my interpretation would be (players) and (members of Vulcan on
> August 27 (?) 1997). I don't see how rational argument can help here, it's
> down to interpretation. I don't wish to bash on saying "This is my opinion
> and anyone who disagrees is stupid". As I say, that's my opinion, it's not
> your opinion but neither of our opinions matter, it's the opinion of the
> judge that is important. I know this seems a little garbled but I'm having
> trouble describing it better.

It's not a rational argument in the sense of asking for "proof". I
just find interpretation one a bit counterintuitive. If my example
doesn't make you rethink your opinion, is it because you think it is a
poor analogy? Or maybe you can offer a counterexample that you think
illuminates your point of view?

And our opinions may not matter for the purposes of this CFJ, but they
are interesting nonetheless.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:34:44 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:
> 
> > Firstly, the intentions of Vulcan when making rule 1 have nothing to do
> > with it. Only the actual text of the rule matters.
> > 
> > Next, I disagree about the interpretation that should be taken. My opinion
> > is option one, but I don't doubt that that will come down to the
> > interpretation made by the judge, supreme court or dice server :-)
> > 
> > I agree that whatever the interpretation, it doesn't really matter. I
> > believe that Malenkai left the game as normal. This then causes a potential
> > problem in rule 1. Since the bit about no non-players comes after the bit
> > about members of Vulcan, it takes precedence and Malenkai is not an evil
> > overlord.
> 
> The "fact" that it takes precedence is stated in a later Rule.  This later
> Rule therefore attempts to override part of Rule 1.  Rule 1 therefore
> strikes it down, and hence we cannot determine which of the two statements
> would overrule each other in the event of a conflict.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko

This is incorrect.  It is not Rule 102 that is attempting to override part
of Rule 1, but Rule 1 itself.  Rule 102 explains how to decide which of
the two options goes into effect, but it does not in and of itself attempt
to take precedence over Rule 1.  Guy Fawkes already did a paradox win CFJ
over this sort of thing, and it was a doozy.  I appealed the original
false verdict, but it was upheld.  Sorry but I don't remember the exact
CFJ number.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:42:34 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

- ----------
> From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory
> Date: 14 January 1998 19:25
> 
> >> I don't see how you come to that. If I said to you, "Those files I was
> >> describing to you yesterday are on my ftp site," and if it turned out
> >> that only three of the four were actually there because I had
> >> accidentally deleted one of them, wouldn't you think that my statement
> >> was a bit incorrect?

> It's not a rational argument in the sense of asking for "proof". I
> just find interpretation one a bit counterintuitive. If my example
> doesn't make you rethink your opinion, is it because you think it is a
> poor analogy? Or maybe you can offer a counterexample that you think
> illuminates your point of view?

With your analogy the files don't cease to be files at any time. I believe
that Malenkai has ceased to be a player so it no longer applies to him.
This analogy is not historically or politically accurate but I believe it
demonstrates my point:

"Those countries that were involved in world war one on the losing side are
currently paying war damages to Britain."

Now, Austrio-Hungary was involved in WW1 on the losing side. However, it is
no longer a country. Hence, Austrio-Hungary cannot be paying war damages to
Britain. I do not believe that this invalidates the statement, however.

> And our opinions may not matter for the purposes of this CFJ, but they
> are interesting nonetheless.

True.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:43:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

> This is incorrect.  It is not Rule 102 that is attempting to override part
> of Rule 1, but Rule 1 itself.  Rule 102 explains how to decide which of
> the two options goes into effect, but it does not in and of itself attempt
> to take precedence over Rule 1.  Guy Fawkes already did a paradox win CFJ
> over this sort of thing, and it was a doozy.  I appealed the original
> false verdict, but it was upheld.  Sorry but I don't remember the exact
> CFJ number.

CFJ 461. (I will never forget that number.)

Unfortunately, Vynd, that CFJ is probably inapplicable here. A key
point of the verdict was that one of the conflicting rules (rule 255)
was below Rule 102, so Rule 102 was able to "force" Rule 255 to cede
precedence to Rule 1. In this case, however, all of the conflicts are
in rules above Rule 102.

Slakko's argument may still be incorrect for other reasons, of course.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:46:49 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Common Sense Report (fwd)

I sent this to Vynd assuming e would distribute it.  At least that's what
I thought his job description as CSRR officer meant.  In case he isn't
responsible for distributing CSRs made by other officers entitled to make
them, I am submitting this one publicly.

#begin CSR 125

Insert ", unless otherwise specified" before the final full stop in
section 2E of Rule 1230.1.

{{[This ensures that the change listed in Pawn Flick will actually have an
effect other than to reduce everyone's piece allowance by 1.]}}

Delete sections (i) and (ii) of Part 8 of Rule 1230.2.

Amend section (iii) of Part 8 of Rule 1230.2 so that it reads:

"(iii) The Sucker transfers A$100 to the SneakThief.  If the Sucker has
insufficient cash, then all eir $A will be transferred to the SneakThief,
and the Sucker is said to have Lost Eir Shirt."

Relabel sections (iii) and (iv) of Part 8 of Rule 1230.2 to sections (i)
and (ii) respectively.

{{[This eliminates the PFBonds language while not affecting the result of
the application of the rule.]}}

Replace all instances of "has not a Free For All" with "has not been a
Free For All" in Rule 1230.2 Part 9.

#end CSR

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:22:57 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka:mess

OK fine next time I help to cause mass turmoil I wont apologize. Instead I will 
issue a message on wich I  laugh maniacly like this.
MUAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 I hope this is more to your liking.  ;-)
			Bill the Pirate King.
- ----------
From:  Brian Raiter
Sent:  Wednesday, January 14, 1998 6:07 AM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: acka:mess

> I would like to apologize to all of acka in general, and
> specifically to Malenkai, Alfvaen, and Breadbox, for any of this
> mess I may have caused.  I felt that this was something better
> resolved sooner than later.  If however all of you have chosen to
> blame slakko then I will join you in blaming him for the current
> mess.

Please, please, don't apologize. This is what nomic is all about. As
others have said, far better that this is dealt with now than (say) a
week from now.

In case people have taken my messages the wrong way, I am not upset.
(Admittedly, it's disconcerting that Malenkai is currently trapped in
this game, but this should be quickly resolvable, now that the IPs
have been retracted.)

I am most certainly not upset. I am however, a little frazzled. It's
exactly these sorts of complications that make nomic fun - for me,
anyway - because it's challenging, and difficult. On the other hand,
RL does not always give one the free time necessary to dig in and deal
with the situation to the level it requires.

All I am asking is for players to recognize that we are currently in a
thread split, and to take that into consideration when doing anything
that might require extra harfing. I'm farther behind in my duties than
I ever have been, and I want to dig myself out as quickly as possible,
so we can all enjoy the game to its fullest.

breadbox

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #463
*******************************