Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #467
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, January 16 1998       Volume 02 : Number 467

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:38:29 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: anti-foting, points,scams

Anti-voting is one of things that makes Nomic Nomic.  I don't know that I
have ever been involved  in a serious Nomic that didn't have anti-voting.
(the one the degenerated into charades on crack doesn't count).
Anti-voting adds a certain level of complexity to getting marginally
supported proposals.  You can count your votes, and be pretty sure that
you can get it through, while at the same time the people that you had
counted make the same count, see they can anti-vote, do so, and the
proposal fails by a vote or two.  It also gives a reason to vote on
proposals that don't necessarily effect you.  Restrictions on anti-voting
are not necessarily a bad thing -- they add a little more complexity, but
try to limit the bad things that anti-voting causes.  Slakko's recent
proposal was rather complicated, and it had that ternery hearing, which I
think is a bad idea.  [though it could be considered a good one for much
the same reasons.]  

Winning by points is the only way to win in the initial set of rules for
Nomic, other then by paradox.  I don't see why setting out to win by
getting the magic number should be considered a bad thing.  It is
certainly the most labourious.  You are not going to get 379 points in a
short period of time, and it will take even longer to do it by
anti-voting.  Finding a big gaping (or a needle-eye-sized) loophole and
surfing through it, may be more fun, but I don't see how it is more in the
spirit of the game.  (except that rules allowed you to do so, and what the
rules don't prohibit...)

Keep anti-voting, or ditch points entirely, and work out other ways to
win.  

rufus

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:15:30 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> 1) proposals require more work on the part of the harfers and acka
> at large than the writers.  That makes them a bad candidate for a
> win for the writers, imo.

Yes, but proposals require more "creativity" in a lot of cases.  Reorgs
aren't the only type of proposals by a long stretch, and so new ideas have
to be brought into the game.  If people are not rewarded for their
creativity in some way, what incentive is there for them to do all the
brainstorming?

> 2) scams and other sorts of wins require more work for the winner
> than acka at large.  The exact opposite.  Scams also open the door
> for players with little time to compete against those that have
> all day to play nomic.  Scams generally are more interesting,
> elegant, and fun than rolling up points, for some, perhaps a
> minority, of nomic players.

Yes, but they are reliant on things overlooked in the ruleset.  The longer
a nomic goes on, IMHO, the more people are alert to scams, and the less
likely scam wins get.  So after a while, you'd have to wait a year or so
for a scam win.

I agree that finding a scam is fun, and trying to squeeze a win out of it
is fun, but determining what makes a PWCFJ TRUE these days is more than a
Third Year Pure Maths course in Logic and Godel's Theorem can provide.
Not everyone has the time, or the skill, even, to be an expert logician
either.

> 3) winning by proposal generally goes to the person who has alot
> of time to write them.  I did not mean to imply that that is less
> worthy, but it requires more "brute force" and less elegance than
> other sorts of wins.  Its sort of the reason serious chess players
> use chess clocks -- to level the playing field in the dimension of
> time.  Most competetive sports and board games also give all
> competetors the same amount of time.  This sort of thing, however,
> is not possible in a pbem nomic game, so reward structures that
> simulate it are good game design, imo.

Hang on.  In point 1 you said that proposals are much more work for the
harfers and the game than for the player.  In this point you say that
proposals take a lot of time to write.  So you're saying that proposals
take an overwhelming amount of time compared to scams?

Never forget that without the proposals the scams are nonexistent.
 
> 4) I do believe writing proposals is the reward in itself.  Don't
> you get more satisfaction from someone accepting your proposal
> than the points.  Good proposals failing due to competetive things
> like anti-voting and scoreboard watching is bad for the development
> of the "story".

I don't believe this is the case.  Good ideas fail in reality just as
much, if not more than they do in nomic.  Anti-voting enables nomics with
a handful of players to simulate the effects of "real world" political
situations such as kickbacks, pressure groups etc, without any of the
complex modelling.

> 
> > I've never actually heard an arguement as to why
> > scams are better than points.  Malenkai says that "flooding the proposal
> > queue" because you have lots of spare time is how you win by points, and
> > that it doesn't really deserve to be a win.  I ask, why not? 
> 
If you flood the proposal queue, then 1 of 2 things will happen:
1.  People like a lot of your proposals - good for you - you're
contributing a lot to the nomic and you probably deserve something for
that, even if you're just writing the proposals for the fun of it.
2.  People dislike your props, or are annoyed with your volume of props -
well, it didn't work, did it?

> Hopefully the above comments answer these questions and others on my
> eliminate anti-voting and points for proposal view.  
> 
> > What makes noticing some bizarre little
> > loophole in an ill-written rule that allows you to triple your score any
> > better than writting 20 odd worthwhile proposals?
> 
> Again, I hope I answered that above.  We do disagree on what makes 
> nomic different than other sorts of games, I guess.  Nomic was invented
> to explore paradox in self-amending law.  Moreover, the inventor of
> nomic claimed in some public writing (possibly on his web page), that
> he purposely made the winning by points in the initial ruleset boring
> so that players would have something off the bat to amend so that 
> they get their nomic feet wet.  This sort of ideaology attracted me
> to nomic in the first place.  Unfortunately, at least for me, this
> nomic has not yet shed the points for proposal concept.  

Can you name a nomic which has which is still going?
I know that most Imperial games these days don't run on an official points
basis, but some point-like device is often introduced.  Games which don't
have an official point-like device are noted for how quickly a win is
achieved.  Given that, I think I would rather have a game where there is
time to develop the ruleset.  (Imperial games traditionally _finish_ when
there is a win, that's why we've had about 27 of them).

> > I don't think there are any real answers to the questions I asked above.
> > Its a matter of opinion, Malenkai has his and I have mine. 
> 
> Actually, I feel I've provided some pretty good points.  Why are
> winning by points and anti-voting good things?  Presumably because
> 60% of the voters enjoy them, nothing more.  I'm not sure I've
> been saying "forever about how the point win is bad", I just don't
> enjoy them, and since I am still here, and since people are discussing
> this issue, new players who may not have read the archives and seen
> me make these points before, I thought I'd mention them again, because
> I believe they are good arguments.
> 
> One cycle was won just because the player in question had a pair
> of whamiols.  Is that less worthy?  You make the call, but IMO,
> its less fun and interesting, and its all about fun on a 
> limited amount of time.  At this point, I don't overly care all
> that much, but people seemed interested on opinions on the matter.

The fact remains that without proposals nomic is not nomic, or at least
not much of a nomic.  If you need a win incentive, even a far-off one, to
get more people writing more proposals and creating a more complex
ruleset, then so be it.  Not everyone can win half the cycles by paradox.

The other argument is that trying to ascribe "worthiness" to different
methods of winning is itself a meaningless act.  The players made the
rules, so they must have considered that all methods were equally
"worthy", regardless of the actual consequences of the rule changes.  I
seriously doubt you will ever be able to pass a proposal in Ackanomic (not
just you, but anyone) abolishing the win by points, unless there is
another method of winning by incremental proposing on the books.  Does
this mean that players see point wins as "worthy", or does what the
players allow itself define "worthy"?

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: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:38:38 -0800
From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to plead inexperience and decline this selection.
Sorry.  Maybe if it wasn't such a ridiculously ugly snag.
(Thanks a lot for bringing it up though Bill, remind me never to mention a
game to you again, sheesh ;) )  <-note proper smiley bracketing

Malenkai wrote:

> This was not distributed as described in the rules
> the first time.  It has been assigned to Goldenmean
> this time.
>
> Clerk of the Courts
> anxiously awaiting retirement :)
> ----------
> From:  aaron shapiro
> Sent:  Tuesday, January 13, 1998 2:10 AM
> To:  'ak registrar'
> Subject:  acka:CFJ
>
> Statement:
> Malenkai was unable to leave the game.
>
> Reasoning:
> Rule one states that "Those players who were members of Vulcan on August
> 28, 1997 [/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, andVynd] are Evil Overlords of
> Ackanomic (retired)"
> This I take as meaning they are always the only members of the Evil Overlords
> Of Ackanomic (retired)(hereafter EOA).
> The rule also states "No other players and no non-players are EvilOverlords of
> Ackanomic (retired). "
> So malenkai must be a member of EOA, but as a non player cannot be a
> member of EOA.
>
> So either malenkai was unable to leave, or the customary interpretation of rule
> one must change.  As rule one states "The game state may not be altered in
> such a way as to cause the customary interpretation of this rule to be
> changed." The customary interpretation may not be changed and so malenkai was
> unable to leave the game.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:22:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: returning

> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Also, not to beat a dead horse, but the comment I saw about
> > presuming the verdict will go to the supreme court underscores
> > my opinion that, to increase fun, the justice system needs to
> > be democratized; the current system feels to me like others must
> > have felt during that vulcan overlord business.  Last word on the
> > issue, I promise :-) :-) (it really is pretty substantial 
> > control of the game state -- at least our view of it -- one
> > has to admit).
> 

All I can say is that it seems to me that Malenkai has seen the Light.
both with this and with his earlier farewell comment about the Senate (or
was it an alegged farewell?)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:29:20 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> I have no objection to stopping abuse of the anti-voting provisions.
> That was the impetus behind my Triantivotigongalope proposal which was
> rejected by a huge majority.  So what was the problem with that proposal,
> if you don't like anti-voting?

Perhaps people didn't dislike - they were just anti-voting..

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:33:19 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have no objection to stopping abuse of the anti-voting provisions.
> > That was the impetus behind my Triantivotigongalope proposal which was
> > rejected by a huge majority.  So what was the problem with that proposal,
> > if you don't like anti-voting?
> 
> Perhaps people didn't dislike - they were just anti-voting..

Funny.  That proposal got fewer YES votes than anything else since I
joined I think.  2 YES, 13 NO.  Hardly an anti-vote.

- --
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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 03:02:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

I don't really have time to get into this discussion as much as I'd
like, but I feel compelled to contribute something. So:

I have no desire to get rid of points, and to be honest I don't really
understand why other people feel so strongly otherwise, except that
they do create a good deal of work. But given that this is a game, and
that there should be ways to win it, it seems perfectly appropriate to
have some kind of long-range, accumulative scoring as part of it.
Furthermore, the game doesn't really bestow privileges on players with
high scores, or hindrances to those with low scores (there are other
ways to win), so you can pretty much ignore points if they don't
interest you. I myself have pretty much always let my score fall where
it may (although lately I have been considering actually trying to
collect points, just to see how hard it is). But never have I felt
that having points in the game was a waste of time. Admittedly, maybe
if I had won a Cycle by points ... more than once ... I would feel
differently. But, like all but one player in the history of Ackanomic,
I haven't, and I don't.

As for anti-voting, I do not want to see it go, and will be rather sad
if 60% of the current group of players wants to remove it. A proposal
writer *always* has the option of Modesty. If anti-voting is an issue,
it is because they voluntarily chose to let it be one. I also like
anti-voting because it is a destabilizing element to the game. A Nomic
without uncertainty and a little bit of danger is no fun. If the other
Ackazens don't agree with that, then ... hmmm ... well, I dunno. Maybe
one of us would be happier in Agora or Pumpkin Patch, instead.

(Of course, you can certainly have too much uncertainty and danger as
well, and Ackanomic certainly has had such periods. But we survived
those periods, and went on to improve. I don't doubt we'll survive the
next one, too.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 23:45:52 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

Call For Judgement 513 (Malenkai) - As opposed to CFJ 513 (Alfvaen)
Subject: Malenkai's playerhood II
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 98-01-13 05:10
Judge: K 2 (selected 98-01-13 20:26)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Malenkai is a player of Ackanomic.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Rule 1 says:

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

Earlier in Rule 1 it says:

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).

The change in the game state from Malenkai being a player to Malenkai no
longer being a player creates a conflict in Rule 1, between the first sentence
and the second sentence.  This therefore attempts to change the customary
interpretation of the rule (clearly the interpretation cannot be the same if a
conflict appears from no conflict).  Hence the change to the game state which
caused the change is a figment of everyone's imagination. Hence Malenkai never
left the game of Ackanomic. Hence Malenkai is still an active player.

Judge's Reasoning:

The second sentence of rule 2:

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

may be interpreted in two ways :

i) that the members of vulcan on 28/8/97 who are also currently players are
EOoA(r).

This interpretation, does not lead to a conflict that would prevent Malenkai
(or any EOoA(r)) from leaving the game by rule 101. Since, by becoming a
non-player, both sentences would concur that Malenkai is not an EOoA(r).

ii) that those players who were also members of vulcan on 28/8/97 are EOoA(r)

This interpretation leads to a paradoxical conflict (CFJ 256, 269) with the
sentence that follows it:

No other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

According to game custom, by leaving the game Malenkai would become a
non-player. This would mean that either Malenkai would continue to be an
EOoA(r) according to the second sentence, or cease to be one by the third. In
the absence of rule 102, or in the event that it had no effect on rule 1, it
would be impossible to determine precedence between these sentences and
Malenkai's EOoA(r) status would be indeterminate.

The creation of a paradox in the rule set, does not, of itself, prevent an
action from occurring. Malenkai's exit from the game was perfectly legal by
rule 101, the fact that it may cause a paradox in rule 1 in no way hinders his
action.

If the following paragraph (of rule 102) :

If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and the rule
doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement which appears
later in the rule takes precedence.

is applied, Malenkai (the non-player) would cease to be an EOoA(r) and no
paradox would exist.

There remains the question of weather rule 102 may be applied to rule 1.

Since the preceding paragraph (from rule 102) predates rule 1, it is neither
new nor modified with respect to rule 1, it thus by-passes many of the
statements made in the final paragraph of rule 1. Furthermore, in resolving
the conflict in rule 1, rule 102 does not in itself conflict with rule 1, thus
it has effect.

Malenkai's departure does not change the customary interpretation of rule 1.
It merely creates a conflict within rule 1, when the customary interpretations
of its second and third sentences are applied, which is resolved by rule 102.

In summary:
Malenkai's attempt to leave Ackanomic was successful.
Malenkai is no longer an EOoA(r).

This CFJ is ruled FALSE.
This CFJ-like document distributed by Malenkai (who was not the CotC at the
time? Balsamic Dragon?? Alfvaen???) is ruled FALSE.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:49:07 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Malenkai/Alfvaen CotC situation theory

> 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.

Yeah

(The verdict of the CFJ (153) distributed by Alfvaen that was ruled TRUE has
been appealed... presumably this appeal can go ahead in the thread where the
supreme court over turns the verdict to FALSE :)

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:05:27 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, K 2 wrote:

> Call For Judgement 513 (Malenkai) - As opposed to CFJ 513 (Alfvaen)
> Subject: Malenkai's playerhood II
> Initiator: Slakko
> Submitted: 98-01-13 05:10
> Judge: K 2 (selected 98-01-13 20:26)
> Judgement: FALSE

In the thread where this CFJ was properly distributed by Malenkai, and
where Malenkai did not leave the game, I am appealing this CFJ.

Note that I cannot be assigned a penalty for this, because if the verdict
is upheld my appeal never happened. (:-))

Yours,
Slakko

> If the following paragraph (of rule 102) :
> 
> If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and the rule
> doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement which appears
> later in the rule takes precedence.
> 
> is applied, Malenkai (the non-player) would cease to be an EOoA(r) and no
> paradox would exist.
> 
> There remains the question of weather rule 102 may be applied to rule 1.
> 
> Since the preceding paragraph (from rule 102) predates rule 1, it is neither
> new nor modified with respect to rule 1, it thus by-passes many of the
> statements made in the final paragraph of rule 1. Furthermore, in resolving
> the conflict in rule 1, rule 102 does not in itself conflict with rule 1, thus
> it has effect.

Appellant's reasoning:

The fact that rule 102 determines that "the statement which appears
later in the rule takes precedence." means it cannot be applied to Rule 1.
Rule 1 has precedence over _all_ other rules where there is a conflict.
There is a conflict in Rule 1 itself, meaning that the first statement and
the second statement as given by the first judge disagree.  As a result,
Rule 102 attempts to arbitrate the conflict by ruling that the second
sentence of rule 1 takes precedence.  This is an attempt by Rule 102 to
overrule the first sentence of rule 1.  By rule 1 this attempt fails,
leaving us with the conflict.

Alternately, given the first interpretaion of the first statement of Rule
1: 

If, as K 2 says, the "customary interpretation" of rule 1 is not changed,
then how can Malenkai change from being an Evil Overlord to no longer
being an Evil Overlord?  Surely the evaluation of the first statement in
Rule 1 was, before Malenkai left, that "Malenkai, Vynd, ThinMan and
/dev/joe each possess the title of Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired)".
The evaluation if Malenkai left the game would become "Vynd, ThinMan and
/dev/joe each possess the title of Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired)".
The change in this evaluation is a change in the customary interpretation
of the rule.

Yours sincerely,
Slakko the
Hey-I-Get-An-Appeal-Where-I-don't-lose-points-for-getting-it-wrong.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:43:25 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: more thread closure

I approve of Malenkai rejoining Vulcan in every thread in which he is not a
member but has requested to become one again.

ThinMan
Vulcan

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:59:10 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

If it is possible for me to distribute this CFJ result, I do so by this
message.

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
Vivian Norwood <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)
> Date: Saturday, January 17, 1998 4:45 AM
> 
> Call For Judgement 513 (Malenkai) - As opposed to CFJ 513 (Alfvaen)
> Subject: Malenkai's playerhood II
> Initiator: Slakko
> Submitted: 98-01-13 05:10
> Judge: K 2 (selected 98-01-13 20:26)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Malenkai is a player of Ackanomic.
> 
> Initiator's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 1 says:
> 
> The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary
> interpretation of this rule to be changed.
> 
> Earlier in Rule 1 it says:
> 
> 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).
> 
> The change in the game state from Malenkai being a player to Malenkai no
> longer being a player creates a conflict in Rule 1, between the first
sentence
> and the second sentence.  This therefore attempts to change the customary
> interpretation of the rule (clearly the interpretation cannot be the same
if a
> conflict appears from no conflict).  Hence the change to the game state
which
> caused the change is a figment of everyone's imagination. Hence Malenkai
never
> left the game of Ackanomic. Hence Malenkai is still an active player.
> 
> Judge's Reasoning:
> 
> The second sentence of rule 2:
> 
> Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe,
> Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).
> 
> may be interpreted in two ways :
> 
> i) that the members of vulcan on 28/8/97 who are also currently players
are
> EOoA(r).
> 
> This interpretation, does not lead to a conflict that would prevent
Malenkai
> (or any EOoA(r)) from leaving the game by rule 101. Since, by becoming a
> non-player, both sentences would concur that Malenkai is not an EOoA(r).
> 
> ii) that those players who were also members of vulcan on 28/8/97 are
EOoA(r)
> 
> This interpretation leads to a paradoxical conflict (CFJ 256, 269) with
the
> sentence that follows it:
> 
> No other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic
(retired).
> 
> According to game custom, by leaving the game Malenkai would become a
> non-player. This would mean that either Malenkai would continue to be an
> EOoA(r) according to the second sentence, or cease to be one by the
third. In
> the absence of rule 102, or in the event that it had no effect on rule 1,
it
> would be impossible to determine precedence between these sentences and
> Malenkai's EOoA(r) status would be indeterminate.
> 
> The creation of a paradox in the rule set, does not, of itself, prevent
an
> action from occurring. Malenkai's exit from the game was perfectly legal
by
> rule 101, the fact that it may cause a paradox in rule 1 in no way
hinders his
> action.
> 
> If the following paragraph (of rule 102) :
> 
> If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and the rule
> doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement which
appears
> later in the rule takes precedence.
> 
> is applied, Malenkai (the non-player) would cease to be an EOoA(r) and no
> paradox would exist.
> 
> There remains the question of weather rule 102 may be applied to rule 1.
> 
> Since the preceding paragraph (from rule 102) predates rule 1, it is
neither
> new nor modified with respect to rule 1, it thus by-passes many of the
> statements made in the final paragraph of rule 1. Furthermore, in
resolving
> the conflict in rule 1, rule 102 does not in itself conflict with rule 1,
thus
> it has effect.
> 
> Malenkai's departure does not change the customary interpretation of rule
1.
> It merely creates a conflict within rule 1, when the customary
interpretations
> of its second and third sentences are applied, which is resolved by rule
102.
> 
> In summary:
> Malenkai's attempt to leave Ackanomic was successful.
> Malenkai is no longer an EOoA(r).
> 
> This CFJ is ruled FALSE.
> This CFJ-like document distributed by Malenkai (who was not the CotC at
the
> time? Balsamic Dragon?? Alfvaen???) is ruled FALSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 14:47:26 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Browser Wars The Return

I have received 7 responses to my Browser Wars message.  
Here are the results:

Internet Exploder: 1
Nutscape alone: 3
Nutscape / Links: 2
Links alone: 1

As a result, I will not be increasing the graphics density of my pages
(although I may still have to add a gif or two depending upon my
distribution of buttons).  Also, I will keep maintaining my lynx friendly
pages (some .txt, some table-free .html) for the benefit of those who wish
to use them.  If there are pages currently without a lynx friendly
version, and someone wishes to see a text only version, email me and I'll
see what I can do.

Your unofficial Spare Head #2 (well, Spare Harfer #2),
Slakko

- --
Duncan "Alfvaen's got a Canadian accent - it works!" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:23:18 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Notification: New Nomic Forming

The old newsgroup alt.games.nomic has been a minor flurry of activity
this week, as people seem to be using it to get a game of Nomic going.
The name and even the initial rules are still under debate at this point,
so I can't really say much about it.  All I can say is that if you are
interested, then you should probably look at alt.games.nomic soon.

- --
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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:38:28 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel

> oops. I thought that the challenged's second was the default referee
> now, but I guess I was wrong. in any case, I volunteer to referee if it
> is legal for me to do so.
> 
> **two-star

I'm not sure about this but I believe that the challenged second is the
default referee if there are no volunteers after a week.

Anyhow, I play v.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:48:12 -0600
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ judge selections

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01C0_01BD2274.9F610BD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can't help but wonder why over the last several months I haven't been =
selected to judge any cfj's.  But Alvaen is CotC for 24 hours and my =
name is selected.  The random selection process doesn't seem to be =
working properly.=20

Crackfoo
(and then it turns out Alvaen shouldn't have assigned the cfj anyway?)

- ------=_NextPart_000_01C0_01BD2274.9F610BD0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I can't help but wonder why over the =
last=20
several months I haven't been selected to judge any cfj's.&nbsp; But =
Alvaen is=20
CotC for 24 hours and my name is selected.&nbsp; The random selection =
process=20
doesn't seem to be working properly. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Crackfoo</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>(and then it turns out Alvaen shouldn't have =
assigned the cfj=20
anyway?)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_01C0_01BD2274.9F610BD0--

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:51:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: returning

> All I can say is that it seems to me that Malenkai has seen the Light.
> both with this and with his earlier farewell comment about the Senate (or
> was it an alegged farewell?)

  Alegged?  Without legs?

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
Some things aren't self-referential.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:08:40 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

> From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
> (Thanks a lot for bringing it up though Bill, remind me never to mention
a
> game to you again, sheesh ;) )  <-note proper smiley bracketing

Noted. :-)
I wonder, should that be ". :-)" or ":-)."

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:53:44 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

> From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
> (Thanks a lot for bringing it up though Bill, remind me never to mention
a
> game to you again, sheesh ;) )  <-note proper smiley bracketing

Noted. :-)
I wonder, should that be ". :-)" or ":-)." ?

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:08:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

> Noted. :-)
> I wonder, should that be ". :-)" or ":-)."

  It should be ":-)".
  (:-))

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
Great minds think differently.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:19:23 -1000
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Gavin M. Doig wrote:

> > From: Joshua Herreshoff <[email-masked]>
> > (Thanks a lot for bringing it up though Bill, remind me never to mention
> a
> > game to you again, sheesh ;) )  <-note proper smiley bracketing
> 
> Noted. :-)
> I wonder, should that be ". :-)" or ":-)."

Who knows :-?

- -rico

Where do you want to go, toady?

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:50:02 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: more thread closure

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> I approve of Malenkai rejoining Vulcan in every thread in which he is not a
> member but has requested to become one again.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> Vulcan
> 

I was wondering how to phrase this myself.  Um, I do the same thing
ThinMan did, except even better.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:20:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

> In the thread where this CFJ was properly distributed by Malenkai, and
> where Malenkai did not leave the game, I am appealing this CFJ.

This did not happen.  The verdict does not exist until the
CotC posts it.  Please, as long as I am CotC -- if I distributed it,
send it just back to me.  Also, K 2, please fix your mailer's clock.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:21:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------7FBC218036109596EA1B0AB7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --------------7FBC218036109596EA1B0AB7
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 23:45:52 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

Call For Judgement 513 (Malenkai) - As opposed to CFJ 513 (Alfvaen)
Subject: Malenkai's playerhood II
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 98-01-13 05:10
Judge: K 2 (selected 98-01-13 20:26)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Malenkai is a player of Ackanomic.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Rule 1 says:

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

Earlier in Rule 1 it says:

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).

The change in the game state from Malenkai being a player to Malenkai no
longer being a player creates a conflict in Rule 1, between the first sentence
and the second sentence.  This therefore attempts to change the customary
interpretation of the rule (clearly the interpretation cannot be the same if a
conflict appears from no conflict).  Hence the change to the game state which
caused the change is a figment of everyone's imagination. Hence Malenkai never
left the game of Ackanomic. Hence Malenkai is still an active player.

Judge's Reasoning:

The second sentence of rule 2:

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

may be interpreted in two ways :

i) that the members of vulcan on 28/8/97 who are also currently players are
EOoA(r).

This interpretation, does not lead to a conflict that would prevent Malenkai
(or any EOoA(r)) from leaving the game by rule 101. Since, by becoming a
non-player, both sentences would concur that Malenkai is not an EOoA(r).

ii) that those players who were also members of vulcan on 28/8/97 are EOoA(r)

This interpretation leads to a paradoxical conflict (CFJ 256, 269) with the
sentence that follows it:

No other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired).

According to game custom, by leaving the game Malenkai would become a
non-player. This would mean that either Malenkai would continue to be an
EOoA(r) according to the second sentence, or cease to be one by the third. In
the absence of rule 102, or in the event that it had no effect on rule 1, it
would be impossible to determine precedence between these sentences and
Malenkai's EOoA(r) status would be indeterminate.

The creation of a paradox in the rule set, does not, of itself, prevent an
action from occurring. Malenkai's exit from the game was perfectly legal by
rule 101, the fact that it may cause a paradox in rule 1 in no way hinders his
action.

If the following paragraph (of rule 102) :

If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and the rule
doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement which appears
later in the rule takes precedence.

is applied, Malenkai (the non-player) would cease to be an EOoA(r) and no
paradox would exist.

There remains the question of weather rule 102 may be applied to rule 1.

Since the preceding paragraph (from rule 102) predates rule 1, it is neither
new nor modified with respect to rule 1, it thus by-passes many of the
statements made in the final paragraph of rule 1. Furthermore, in resolving
the conflict in rule 1, rule 102 does not in itself conflict with rule 1, thus
it has effect.

Malenkai's departure does not change the customary interpretation of rule 1.
It merely creates a conflict within rule 1, when the customary interpretations
of its second and third sentences are applied, which is resolved by rule 102.

In summary:
Malenkai's attempt to leave Ackanomic was successful.
Malenkai is no longer an EOoA(r).

This CFJ is ruled FALSE.
This CFJ-like document distributed by Malenkai (who was not the CotC at the
time? Balsamic Dragon?? Alfvaen???) is ruled FALSE.

- --------------7FBC218036109596EA1B0AB7--

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #467
*******************************