Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #469
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, January 17 1998      Volume 02 : Number 469

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:11:33 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ judge selections

> 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. 

Well, it took me about five months after arriving to find Phoebe for
the first time...  Just statistics.  Unless Malenkai had you on the
CFJIL, and I didn't...

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

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
Did you notice the world is remade with every blink?  --billbill

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:14:24 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Missed Messages

I seem to have been missing a few messages recently.  For instance, Vynd
playing 'bb' in eir Ghost duel, and Slakko's mentioning the Triantivoti-
thing.  breadbox, are you getting weird bounce messages again?  If so, I
should send Telus some email or something.  (Actually, I just had an
interview there yesterday, although not for a Internet-related
position...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
Six big juicy steaks sizzled in a pan as five workmen left the quarry.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:21:51 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ judge + Missing messages

> > 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. 

> I seem to have been missing a few messages recently.

I never saw a CFJ with Crackfoo as the selected judge from Alfvaen.
I also appear to be missing some messages.  The last time this
happened, about a month ago, most of the missing messages were from
Alfvaen, and this again seems to be the case.

Could the postmaster please check the mail server again.  Thx,

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:02:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

The following was received from John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]> 
at my personal e-mail account.

Perhaps it is of interest to you folks.

Randy (aka Malenkai, aka Chiefcheese)

- --

If this was a CFJ, I would be ruling it FALSE.  If I could, I would cite
CFJ 513, but in this thread that isn't a CFJ either.  Suffice it to say
that while Rule 1 states that there are no non-players who are evil
Overlords of Ackanomic, this does not prevent evil overlords from leaving
Ackanomic.  Rule 102 tells us that when two parts of the same rule
conflict, then the later part of the rule holds sway.  The sentence saying
that no non-players are evil overlords comes after the sentence saying
that all players who were members of Vulcan on Aug 28, 1997 (my 21st
birthday :) are evil overlords.  Rather than preventing Malenkai from
leaving the game, the no non-players sentence merely strips him of the
title of evil overlord, superceding the earlier sentence that gave him
that title.  Oh, and just to hold with my tradition of being
excruciatingly nit-picky on CFJ statements.  This non-CFJ would also have
to be judged FALSE because, even if everything else I have said is untrue,
it is certainly the case that Malenkai was capable of leaving the game
before Rule 1 was enacted.

Thus this CFJ (or whatever it is) is most definitely FALSE.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 07:47:27 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> The following was received from John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]> 
> at my personal e-mail account.
> 
> Perhaps it is of interest to you folks.
> 
> Randy (aka Malenkai, aka Chiefcheese)
> 
> --
> 
> If this was a CFJ, I would be ruling it FALSE.  If I could, I would cite
> CFJ 513, but in this thread that isn't a CFJ either.  Suffice it to say
> that while Rule 1 states that there are no non-players who are evil
> Overlords of Ackanomic, this does not prevent evil overlords from leaving
> Ackanomic.  Rule 102 tells us that when two parts of the same rule
> conflict, then the later part of the rule holds sway.  The sentence saying
> that no non-players are evil overlords comes after the sentence saying
> that all players who were members of Vulcan on Aug 28, 1997 (my 21st
> birthday :) are evil overlords.  Rather than preventing Malenkai from
> leaving the game, the no non-players sentence merely strips him of the
> title of evil overlord, superceding the earlier sentence that gave him
> that title.  Oh, and just to hold with my tradition of being
> excruciatingly nit-picky on CFJ statements.  This non-CFJ would also have
> to be judged FALSE because, even if everything else I have said is untrue,
> it is certainly the case that Malenkai was capable of leaving the game
> before Rule 1 was enacted.

I would like to note that CFJ 513 is a CFJ in both threads.  I sent it to
Malenkai and Alfvaen, both of whom distributed it.  Therefore, regardless
of which thread you are in, CFJ 513 was authored by me and is legitimate.

I would also like to know how Rule 102 can override even part of Rule 1.
Surely to do so would violate rule 1?  No-one who has mentioned Rule 102
has explained this yet.

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
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 07:52:24 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeals

I hereby appeal CFJ 513 in the Malenkai is still a player thread.

Note that I have not labelled it the CFJ 513 TRUE thread, because in 
this thread CFJ 513 was ruled FALSE.
Conversely, in the "CFJ 513 FALSE" thread, CFJ 513 was ruled TRUE.

We only have two threads, and both are currently denying their own
existence.  This doesn't look good.  Supreme Court, do your stuff!

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
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:44:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The CFJ Situation

K 2 isn't the only one who's a little confused. I believe the
following represents the facts of the two possible game states.

I'm going to break with tradition and call our two threads the
Malenkai-quit thread and the Malenkai-stuck thread. (Otherwise I would
find myself saying things like "In the CFJ 513 FALSE thread CFJ 513
was judged TRUE"....)

In the Malenkai-quit thread:

* Malenkai's status is pending.
* Alfvaen is the Acting Speaker.
* Balsamic Dragon is the CotC. (As far as I know, she has not announced
  intent to vacate.)
* CFJ 512 was assigned to Crackfoo.
* CFJ 513 was assigned to Red Barn.
* There are "rumors" that Red Barn found CFJ 513 to be True, thus
  invalidating the CFJ and, for that matter, the entire thread.
* There is no CFJ 514, or at least it has not been distributed.

In the Malenkai-stuck thread:

* Malenkai's status is active.
* Malenkai is the Speaker.
* Malenkai is the CotC, and has announced his intent to vacate.
* CFJ 512 was assigned to Goldenmean, who declined, and then to Vynd.
* CFJ 513 was assigned to K 2.
* There are "rumors" that K 2 found CFJ 513 to be False, thus
  invalidating the CFJ and, for that matter, the entire thread. There
  are also "rumors" that Vynd judged CFJ 512 as False, thus
  invalidating the thread yet again. 
* CFJ 514 was assigned to K 2.
* Slakko and Vynd both authored Impeachment Papers, and both have
  since retracted them. 

To the best of my knowledge none of the recent CFJs have been
appealed. Indeed, they can't be, as none of them have had their
verdicts distributed. (It is true that Balsamic Dragon forwarded an
email from K 2, but she was just playing it safe. In the thread where
she is the CotC, K 2 was not selected to judge anything.)

Now, it may be that there is nothing stopping the respective CotCs
from distributing the verdicts they have received (from the proper
judge). The fact that the CFJ verdict they are reporting claims that
they are not the CotC is problematic, but perhaps the "grace period"
argument permits them to ignore the ramifications of the CFJ
temporarily - at least until the CFJ cannot be appealed. However, it
could also be argued that there is game custom to the contrary. I
would like to get Malenkai's opinion on this (if any) before
proceeding.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:06:43 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> K 2 isn't the only one who's a little confused. I believe the
> following represents the facts of the two possible game states.
> 
> I'm going to break with tradition and call our two threads the
> Malenkai-quit thread and the Malenkai-stuck thread. (Otherwise I would
> find myself saying things like "In the CFJ 513 FALSE thread CFJ 513
> was judged TRUE"....)
> 
> In the Malenkai-quit thread:
> 
> * Malenkai's status is pending.
> * Alfvaen is the Acting Speaker.
> * Balsamic Dragon is the CotC. (As far as I know, she has not announced
>   intent to vacate.)
> * CFJ 512 was assigned to Crackfoo.
> * CFJ 513 was assigned to Red Barn.
> * There are "rumors" that Red Barn found CFJ 513 to be True, thus
>   invalidating the CFJ and, for that matter, the entire thread.
> * There is no CFJ 514, or at least it has not been distributed.
> 
> In the Malenkai-stuck thread:
> 
> * Malenkai's status is active.
> * Malenkai is the Speaker.
> * Malenkai is the CotC, and has announced his intent to vacate.
> * CFJ 512 was assigned to Goldenmean, who declined, and then to Vynd.
> * CFJ 513 was assigned to K 2.
> * There are "rumors" that K 2 found CFJ 513 to be False, thus
>   invalidating the CFJ and, for that matter, the entire thread. There
>   are also "rumors" that Vynd judged CFJ 512 as False, thus
>   invalidating the thread yet again. 

Malenkai actually sent a message to the list quoting K 2's CFJ 513 
verdict and judgement.  Ergo, the "rumours" are as confirmed as possible.

> * CFJ 514 was assigned to K 2.
> * Slakko and Vynd both authored Impeachment Papers, and both have
>   since retracted them. 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge none of the recent CFJs have been
> appealed. Indeed, they can't be, as none of them have had their
> verdicts distributed. (It is true that Balsamic Dragon forwarded an
> email from K 2, but she was just playing it safe. In the thread where
> she is the CotC, K 2 was not selected to judge anything.)
> 
> Now, it may be that there is nothing stopping the respective CotCs
> from distributing the verdicts they have received (from the proper
> judge). The fact that the CFJ verdict they are reporting claims that
> they are not the CotC is problematic, but perhaps the "grace period"
> argument permits them to ignore the ramifications of the CFJ
> temporarily - at least until the CFJ cannot be appealed. However, it
> could also be argued that there is game custom to the contrary. I
> would like to get Malenkai's opinion on this (if any) before
> proceeding.

Well, here's my two-bit opinion.
If the CotCs cannot distribute the verdicts, then this applies equally
to both threads.  It is therefore impossible to determine which of the
two threads is the correct thread until someone submits another
relevant CFJ and it is judged as legitimate by one or other of the
threads.

If the CotCs can distribute the verdicts, then Malenkai has already
distributed the CFJ 513 verdict in the Malenkai stuck thread.  I have
since appealed this (if you don't believe me, check the mail logs)
and it is currently under the consideration of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, it is impossible for me to be assessed a penalty by
the Supreme Court, because upholding the verdict of the original
appellant would invalidate the thread.

I also note that technically the Supreme Court may have the power to
crash the game irrevocably, by upholding the verdicts in each thread,
causing both threads to disappear and leaving us with no game.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "Be afraid.  Be very afraid." Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:07:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Other notes

1. Unless I miscalculated somewhere, all of the proposal results were
the same in both threads. (I count my blessings.) Thus the only
differences between the threads with respect to the voting reports are
changes to Malenkai's score - which are none in the Malenkai-quit
thread.

2. From here on out, Malenkai's votes are the same in both threads.
(And he will probably soon change from pending to active, so that's
one more state collapse.)

3. There have been one or two actions that players have taken that
were indicated as being in one thread only that I didn't include in
the previous email, because I don't remember all of them right now.

4. I have not received any further bounce messages from
telusplanet.net since those few I reported early this week. I can try
tweaking a few things and see if that changes anything, but as far as
I can tell everything should be working.

5. Ignore my comments about Modesty and anti-voting. Those were
apparently meant to be posted in a completely different game thread.

6. If there are any errors of fact in this or my previous email,
please bring them to my attention at once.

7. Is there anything else that I missed?

8. Why do I feel the need to number these? Am I just trying to make
myself look more organized than I really am?

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:23:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

> Well, here's my two-bit opinion.
> If the CotCs cannot distribute the verdicts, then this applies equally
> to both threads.  It is therefore impossible to determine which of the
> two threads is the correct thread until someone submits another
> relevant CFJ and it is judged as legitimate by one or other of the
> threads.
> 
> If the CotCs can distribute the verdicts, then Malenkai has already
> distributed the CFJ 513 verdict in the Malenkai stuck thread.  I have
> since appealed this (if you don't believe me, check the mail logs)

I didn't mention your latest appeal (or appeal attempt) in my email
because I was in the middle of composing it at the time. Unless you
make a fourth attempt at an appeal that I've missed?

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 01:25:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

> I didn't mention your latest appeal (or appeal attempt) in my email
> because I was in the middle of composing it at the time. Unless you
> make a fourth attempt at an appeal that I've missed?
> 
> breadbox

Actually, I think I meant to say third up there.

breadbox
can't count anymore
going to bed

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:32:14 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> I do not observe or play in other nomics, but I was told 
> that Agora did not have points (or even winning).  I have 
> not attempted to verify if that is true or false.

I have.  It is true.  What is also true is that Agora has eliminated
(at least from their ruleset) paradox wins.  Currently the only way
to win is to be the only immaculate player (i.e. Blotless).
Even if immaculate wins were to be abolished, the ruleset would then
make all players win every quarter.

> I'm not arguing to eliminate proposals, just point, currency, and
> swingpoint accumulation.  It seems excessive to have 1, much less
> three measures of wealth.  At one time, we had even more scorekeeping
> tokens, and they have been eliminated, fortunately.

Agora, on the other hand, has VTs, P-Notes, Indulgences, Blots and Kudos.
No win by proposals, but an even more complex system of scorekeeping.

> In any
> case, my favorite genre of game has no winning at all, and that
> is FRP games, such as Dungeons and Dragons and the like.  I prefer
> the sorts of incentive model in those games, and that is the 
> satisfaction of elegance, problem solving, character development,
> creativity, and competing against the environment as opposed to
> other players.

That would be fine, if the environment weren't created by other
players, like it is in Nomic.  

I also note that a statistical based D&D game may have no wins, but it has
two ways of keeping score - XP and GP.  Even if most players don't care
about these as a means of keeping score, they are still a big influence on
the game as it affects the nature of the opponents characters face, the
equipment they have to use, etc.

> As for the rest of my points, the voters and I will have to agree to
> disagree, I suppose, because no argument I have seen has convinced me
> to change my view, and I have yet to convince anyone else that having
> others work for your win is a bad thing :-)

There's no 'i' in team.  :-)
Solo wins can get other people more ticked off at you than a win
which somehow happened out of a lot of people helping each other.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 04:46:52 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> > If this was a CFJ, I would be ruling it FALSE.  If I could, I would cite
> > CFJ 513, but in this thread that isn't a CFJ either.  Suffice it to say
> > that while Rule 1 states that there are no non-players who are evil
> > Overlords of Ackanomic, this does not prevent evil overlords from leaving
> > Ackanomic.  Rule 102 tells us that when two parts of the same rule
> > conflict, then the later part of the rule holds sway.  The sentence saying
> > that no non-players are evil overlords comes after the sentence saying
> > that all players who were members of Vulcan on Aug 28, 1997 (my 21st
> > birthday :) are evil overlords.  Rather than preventing Malenkai from
> > leaving the game, the no non-players sentence merely strips him of the
> > title of evil overlord, superceding the earlier sentence that gave him
> > that title.  Oh, and just to hold with my tradition of being
> > excruciatingly nit-picky on CFJ statements.  This non-CFJ would also have
> > to be judged FALSE because, even if everything else I have said is untrue,
> > it is certainly the case that Malenkai was capable of leaving the game
> > before Rule 1 was enacted.
> 
> I would like to note that CFJ 513 is a CFJ in both threads.  I sent it to
> Malenkai and Alfvaen, both of whom distributed it.  Therefore, regardless
> of which thread you are in, CFJ 513 was authored by me and is legitimate.

Yes it certainly is.  What I meant in the above was that the verdict that
K 2 returned would have clearly indicated a verdict of FALSE on the CFJ I
was judging, if not for the fact that by judging his CFJ FALSE K 2 was
saying that it was not a CFJ (among other things).

> 
> I would also like to know how Rule 102 can override even part of Rule 1.
> Surely to do so would violate rule 1?  No-one who has mentioned Rule 102
> has explained this yet.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko

Rule 102 explains how to determine intrarule precedence.  Rule 1 has
nothing to say on this matter.  So Rule 102 is not overriding anything
when it tells us that the later parts of Rule 1 takes precedence over the
earlier sections.  Yes it is explaining to us how to understand Rule 1,
but it is only explaining, not supplanting.  There is no conflict between
Rule 1 and Rule 102 on this matter, Rule 102 says obey the 2nd sentence
rather than the first, and Rule 1 does not oppose this.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:03:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> 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 rule1 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.
> 

I disagree with the Appellant's reasoning. I think it takes a far too
extensive view of precedence. Precedence should only be invoked when there
is actual conflict between rules. Rule 1 is completely silent as to
precedence among statments within the rule, and therefore does not
conflict with rule 102. Since there is no conflict, there is no
precedence issue her.

Niccolo Flychuck
Bronze Torch Holder

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:05:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: returning

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > 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?

:)

Alegged and unarmed.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:09:44 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

> I would also like to know how Rule 102 can override even part of Rule 1.
> Surely to do so would violate rule 1?  No-one who has mentioned Rule 102
> has explained this yet.
>

Rule 102 doesnt *override* part of rule 1, it provides a basis for correctly
interpretting a conflict within rule 1.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:12:38 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

My applogies for sending my verdict to the public list as well as all the
potential CotCs, I did so because I was unsure (given the verdict on this
non-CFJ and others) who was the correct recipeient (hopefully we'll have a
CFJ ruled on that will sort this out soon :)

Malenkai wrote:

> > 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: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:48:56 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > 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 rule1 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.
> 
> I disagree with the Appellant's reasoning. I think it takes a far too
> extensive view of precedence. Precedence should only be invoked when there
> is actual conflict between rules. Rule 1 is completely silent as to
> precedence among statments within the rule, and therefore does not
> conflict with rule 102. Since there is no conflict, there is no
> precedence issue her.

This interpretation, although I can see why it may well be valid, makes a
distinguishing mark between the following two statements:

"If there is a conflict between this rule and any other rule, then this
rule shall guide play."

and

"If there is a conflict between any clause of this rule and any other
rule, then the clause of this rule shall guide play."

At least that is how I see it.  

Yours,
Slakko
not a Bronze Torch Holder by a long streak.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:49:13 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Reminder

Just to add to the confusion I'm going to remind the supreme court justices
that a verdict was due on CFJ 484 a week ago...

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:55:16 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

> This interpretation, although I can see why it may well be valid, makes a
> distinguishing mark between the following two statements:
> 
> "If there is a conflict between this rule and any other rule, then this
> rule shall guide play."
> 
> and
> 
> "If there is a conflict between any clause of this rule and any other
> rule, then the clause of this rule shall guide play."
> 
> At least that is how I see it.  
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> not a Bronze Torch Holder by a long streak.

Can I just ask where the conflict between rule 1 and rule 102 is? Which
bits of rule 1 conflict with rule 102? I'm not sure exactly what your view
is here.

The Gingham Wearer,
likewise, nowhere near being a Bronze Torch Holder.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:41:17 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> Can I just ask where the conflict between rule 1 and rule 102 is? Which
> bits of rule 1 conflict with rule 102? I'm not sure exactly what your view
> is here.

Well, Rule 102 says that the second of the two contradictory sentences is
the only one which has any effect.

Therefore, the first sentence says something.
Rule 102 says: no, you can't say anything.

That's a conflict as far as I can tell.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 08:53:49 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

Slakko wrote:
>> I disagree with the Appellant's reasoning. I think it takes a far too
>> extensive view of precedence. Precedence should only be invoked when there
>> is actual conflict between rules. Rule 1 is completely silent as to
>> precedence among statments within the rule, and therefore does not
>> conflict with rule 102. Since there is no conflict, there is no
>> precedence issue her.
>
>This interpretation, although I can see why it may well be valid, makes a
>distinguishing mark between the following two statements:
>
>"If there is a conflict between this rule and any other rule, then this
>rule shall guide play."
>
>and
>
>"If there is a conflict between any clause of this rule and any other
>rule, then the clause of this rule shall guide play."
>
>At least that is how I see it.  

I see your point, and, in fact, I agree to some extent.  But consider a
hypothetical case in which one clause of rule 1 conflicts with both
another rule and a later clause of rule 1, where the later clause
contradicts the earlier clause but is in agreement with the other rule.
The first statement above would not be relevant to the situation, whereas
the second one would.  What, however, would be the _effect_ of the second
statement?  It says that rule 1 would guide play, but rule 1's final
requirements are in agreement with the "conflicting" rule, so the
effect is as if the second statement were the same as the first.

The other alternative statement that could cause problems would be
"If there is a conflict between any clause of this rule and any other
rule, then the conflicting clause of this rule shall guide play."  I
argue that this would have a different effect than the other two
statements, but the rules would still direct an unambiguous interpretation.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 08:56:09 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Discovery

While perusing ancient volumes of mystical lore, I came across some
remarkable rituals, incantations, and symbols of power.  I have yet
to explore the full usefulness of these, but I have made some progress.
I can therefore report the following Discovery:

Circle of Mystic Protection

The Circle of Mystic Protection is a wondrous magical gadget.  It requires
the cooperation of at least three people to work properly, however, and
therefore can only be used by an Organization which owns it and which has
at least three members.  Furthermore, it is an odd idiosyncracy of these
devices that only player-sanctioned Organizations can use them; rule-
sanctioned Organizations cannot.  [It is speculated that some kind of
ethereal gadget/ruleset feedback is responsible for the distinction.]

A Circle of Mystic Protection (Circle) is always in one of three states:
inactive, energized, or active.  When first created, a Circle of Mystic
Protection is inactive.  If its owner can use the Circle then it may change
the Circle's state to another of the possible states as an organizational
action, subject to the following restrictions and caveats.  Circles may not
be changed from the inactive state directly to the active state.  If a
a Circle is changed directly from the active state to the inactive state
then it is destroyed.  The rituals for changing a Circle's state are complex
and exhausting, so the owner of a Circle may not change its state more
than once in any 24 hour period.  If the owner of an energized or active
Circle ceases to be able to use it then the Circle is immediately changed
to the inactive state and may not then have its state changed again for
three days (if it still exists at all).

While an Organization owns an energized or active Circle of Mystic Protection,
the following apply to that Organization: 
(1) Its name may not be changed by any means.
(2) It may neither gain nor lose any possessions by any means.
(3) No non-member may become a member by any means.
(4) No member may be removed from membership except by voluntarilly leaving
    or by quitting the game.
(5) It may not perform any actions other than changing the Circle's state.

If an Organization owns an active Circle of Mystic Protection, then any
proposal up for voting consideration which stipulates an effect on the
Organization forbidden by (1)-(5) above, or which, if accepted, would
directly or indirectly cause the rules or their associated entities
to be changed to allow any such effect in contradiction of this rule, then
that proposal is instantly destroyed, and its author loses 5 points.

Maintaining a Circle of Mystic Protection in the active state is
spiritually and physically draining.  Each player member of an Organization
with a Circle loses 2 points each day that the Circle is active.  If a
player member of an Organization with a Circle of Protection posts more
than three public messages or performs more than one action during any
24-hour period (or less) while the Circle is active, then that Circle's
state is immediately changed to inactive.  Messages and actions as are
required to legally change the Circle's state are not counted against those
limits, however.

Circles of Mystic Protection have a special incompatibility with Scrolls of
Crumble.  If a Scroll of Crumble is used with a Circle specified, then that
Circle is not destroyed.  Instead, if the Circle was active when the Scroll
was used then it becomes energized; if it was energized at that time then it
becomes inactive; if it was inactive then the Scroll backfires and a random
gadget belonging to the owner of the Scroll is affected as if it had been
specified instead of the Circle.  Moreover, no Scroll of Crumble may be used
if its owner also owns a Circle, and no Circle may be used if its owner also
owns a Scroll of Crumble.

This rule takes precedence over all Blueprints.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 14:19:57 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> If an Organization owns an active Circle of Mystic Protection, then any
> proposal up for voting consideration which stipulates an effect on the
> Organization forbidden by (1)-(5) above, or which, if accepted, would
> directly or indirectly cause the rules or their associated entities
> to be changed to allow any such effect in contradiction of this rule, then
> that proposal is instantly destroyed, and its author loses 5 points.

Dear Sir,

Prove to me that your proposal will never indirectly lead to the rules
entering a state where it is possible to allow an effect in contradiction
of this rule.

If any organisation ever creates one of these, further rule changes will
be impossible.

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
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 14:23:46 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Invention

Apologies if my last message was a bit cryptic.

My question is:

How can you prove that your proposal does not _indirectly_ lead to 
a game state where something could happen to contradict the requirements
in the new Blueprint?

I think to prove such a thing without playing the game out for an infinite
amount of time would be equivalent to the halting problem (or close enough
anyway for our purposes).

I would therefore suggest that the Wizard consider a slightly less harmful
invention.

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
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:05:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

> There's no 'i' in team.  :-)
> Solo wins can get other people more ticked off at you than a win
> which somehow happened out of a lot of people helping each other.

Huh?  What is the relevance of this comment to this discussion?

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:47:22 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-Voting Discussion

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > There's no 'i' in team.  :-)
> > Solo wins can get other people more ticked off at you than a win
> > which somehow happened out of a lot of people helping each other.
> 
> Huh?  What is the relevance of this comment to this discussion?
> 
It was the result of a deliberate misinterpretation of your previous
comment "having other people work for your win".
Plus a non-sequitur or two thrown into the bargain.

Hey, who says I have to be consistent? d:-p
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:10:53 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

> Well, Rule 102 says that the second of the two contradictory sentences is
> the only one which has any effect.
> 
> Therefore, the first sentence says something.
> Rule 102 says: no, you can't say anything.
> 
> That's a conflict as far as I can tell.

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."

Rule 102 does not stop any part of rule 1 taking effect. Part of rule 1
stops another part of rule 1 taking effect. Rule 1 doesn't make any comment
about precedence within itself so rule 102 should apply to resolve the
conflict.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:21:21 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 514 (K 2)

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> 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."
> 
> Rule 102 does not stop any part of rule 1 taking effect. Part of rule 1
> stops another part of rule 1 taking effect. Rule 1 doesn't make any comment
> about precedence within itself so rule 102 should apply to resolve the
> conflict.

I think we've just about reached the point here where it comes down to
one's personal axioms.  When you hit that point, further discourse
obviously won't work and it comes down to which axioms are more prevalent.

My axiom: Rule 102 is responsible for trying to sort out the conflict,
Rule 1 knocks it on the head and says "Bad rule, no treat for you."

TGW's axiom (my apologies if I misrepresent, please feel free to correct):
Rule 1 invites Rule 102 in to "interpret" itself, thereby determining
which of the two statements hold.  

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "axiomatic" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #469
*******************************