Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #472
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Sunday, January 18 1998       Volume 02 : Number 472

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 00:26:56 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CotC?

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> What is the current situation with the Clerk of the Court?
> 
> I assume that we are trying to have the CotC become the same person in
> both threads, as that would go a long way toward keeping this thread
> split from getting out of hand.

As I understand it, Balsamic Dragon is the intended CotC in both/all
threads.  Not sure when she becomes it in the Malenkai never quit thread,
though.  I seem to have tossed that mail.

rufus

> 
> But I've lost track of just who it is that we're trying to place in
> that Office.
> 
> breadbox
> 

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:27:47 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CotC?

> What is the current situation with the Clerk of the Court?

> I assume that we are trying to have the CotC become the same person in
> both threads, as that would go a long way toward keeping this thread
> split from getting out of hand.

> But I've lost track of just who it is that we're trying to place in
> that Office.

Balsamic Dragon seems to be the current favourite.  E is the CotC in
the no-Malenkai thread, and as of tomorrow afternoon should become the
CotC in the other thread as well.

Of course, I don't know if e wants to be stuck with the job of Acting
Speaker or not...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Crystal Waters:Surprise
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
Klingons and Barney.  Lace and Velcro.  It's a bad idea.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 21:59:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fair Voting

Proposal 2612 is invalid by Rule 313 (section I) and is removed from
voting consideration.

I believe Proposal 2593 would have also been prevented from having
effect (by section III of the same rule) if it has passed, but since
it didn't, it's a non-issue.

breadbox
Rule-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:41:51 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fair Voting

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2612 is invalid by Rule 313 (section I) and is removed from
> voting consideration.
> 
> I believe Proposal 2593 would have also been prevented from having
> effect (by section III of the same rule) if it has passed, but since
> it didn't, it's a non-issue.

Actually, looking at the text of section III I see the following:

III. Effects Triggered on Changing the Triggering Rules 

If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules that generate effects or
cause some entity to generate effects (including but not limited to score
changes) based on
the way players vote, then those rules generate no effects based on the
way players vote on that particular proposal. This section of this rule
takes precedence
over all other rules which generate effects based on the way players vote
on proposals, but defers to the following paragraph. 

Let's see, what does it affect.
It doesn't create a new rule that generates an effect or causes an entity
to generate an effect based on player voting.
It only _has_ an effect based on the way players vote.
Technically, that's what every proposal does.
I don't think it would have been eliminated.
- --
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: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:50:50 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma: End of the Day

I declare the end of the current Otzma Day.

There are 6 auctions to be held.  All will be held publicly.  The auction
for 2 Share My Expenses cards has two items, all others have exactly 1
item.  There are no groups in any auction.

Auction A: 1 Map Shard
Auction B: 2 Share My Expenses
Auction C: 1 Share Your Income
Auction D: 1 Grave Robber
Auction E: 1 Skeleton Key
Auction F: 1 Scientist for a Day

Auctions start now.

Yours,
Slakko
Chief Cheese
- --
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: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:52:05 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma: End of the Day

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> Auction A: 1 Map Shard
> Auction B: 2 Share My Expenses
> Auction C: 1 Share Your Income
> Auction D: 1 Grave Robber
> Auction E: 1 Skeleton Key
> Auction F: 1 Scientist for a Day

I bid A$10 in all these auctions.

rufus

> 
> Auctions start now.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> Chief Cheese
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:57:10 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Speaker election results

In whatever thread(s) I have been holding an election for Speaker, Alfvaen
has won, 13 votes to K 2's 3.   Votes follow.

rufus
Count Tabula

Alfvaen		**two-star
Alfvaen		Fortunato
Alfvaen		K 2   // This is not a mistake
Alfvaen		Red Barn
Alfvaen		Rex Muni
Alfvaen		Slagothor
Alfvaen		TGW
Alfvaen		alfvaen
Alfvaen		bill the Pirate King
Alfvaen	Slakko
Alfvaen	Vynd
Alfvaen 	breadbox
Alfvaen ThinMan
K 2	Malenkai
K 2	Malenkai EBS
K 2 	else...if

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 04:11:22 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Speaker election results

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> In whatever thread(s) I have been holding an election for Speaker, Alfvaen
> has won, 13 votes to K 2's 3.   Votes follow.

I point out that I seem to be having weird mail problems.  I voted in this
election, but my mail seems not to have reached me.  I haven't noticed any
other problems.  

rufus

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:17:05 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  Senate voting results...

there is a complication in this election.  Fortunato attempted to change
eir vote.  I don't think that this is allowed.  Rule 402 (ii).e says 

e) During the Election Period, each voting player may cast one vote for
any one of the Nominees
by so notifying the appropriate Officer. 

It doesn't say anything about changing one's vote.  If Fortunato's vote
change is allowed, the results are Rex Mundi 8, Slakko 6, else...if 3.  If
the change is not allowed the results are Rex Muni 7, Slakko 7, else...if
3.  If it is the case that the change is not permitted and there is a tie,
I will randomly determine the winner.  I suspect that someone will CFJ
this, and I hope that the dice make Rex Mundi the winner to avoid yet
another spread split.  

rufus
count tabula

voting:
REX Mundi	Malenkai
Rex Mundi	**two-star
Rex Mundi	Alfvaen
Rex Mundi	Fortunato  // if change possible
Rex Mundi	Malenkai's EBS
Rex Mundi	Rex Mundi
Rex Mundi	Vynd
Rex Mundi 	Vynd's EBS
Slakko		Fortunato // if change not permitted
Slakko	Balsamic Dragon
Slakko	Slagothor
Slakko	ThinMan
Slakko	slakko
Slakko 	 Bill the Pirate King
Slakko 	rufus
else...if	Red Barn
else...if	TGW
else...if 	else...if

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:36:48 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> there is a complication in this election.  Fortunato attempted to change
> eir vote.  I don't think that this is allowed.  Rule 402 (ii).e says 
> 
> e) During the Election Period, each voting player may cast one vote for
> any one of the Nominees
> by so notifying the appropriate Officer. 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about changing one's vote.  If Fortunato's vote
> change is allowed, the results are Rex Mundi 8, Slakko 6, else...if 3.  If
> the change is not allowed the results are Rex Muni 7, Slakko 7, else...if
> 3.  If it is the case that the change is not permitted and there is a tie,
> I will randomly determine the winner.  I suspect that someone will CFJ
> this, and I hope that the dice make Rex Mundi the winner to avoid yet
> another spread split.  

I was hoping the rules would back you up on this giving Rex the job.
However, I note that the rule dealing with voting on proposals, unlike
that for Hearings, specifically mentions changing one's vote.  The
Hearing rules provide no means for changing one's vote, and hence as "The
rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the rules.
"(Rule 101) there is no way for Fortunato to change eir vote.  Hence it is
a 7-7 tie and the dice must be thrown.

Yours,
Slakko
Not in league with the forces of E-Vil
- --
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: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:47:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

> I was hoping the rules would back you up on this giving Rex the job.
> However, I note that the rule dealing with voting on proposals, unlike
> that for Hearings, specifically mentions changing one's vote.  The
> Hearing rules provide no means for changing one's vote, and hence as "The
> rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the rules.
> "(Rule 101) there is no way for Fortunato to change eir vote.  Hence it is
> a 7-7 tie and the dice must be thrown.

I'm not entirely sure about that. I think game custom would permit one
to change one's vote.

The idea is that "casting a vote" is not necessarily synonymous with
sending a single message. What private voting entails is not
specifically described in the rules, so the mechanics of it are pretty
much left up to whoever has to harf it. (Within reason, of course.)
As long as Fortunato communicates unambiguously to Count Tabula how he
wants his vote to be used (and Count Tabula is able and willing to
deal with the extra work of allowing people to change their vote),
then the rules do not forbid it.

However, as I said, I'm not sure. Maybe the previous Count Tabula
might know, if he is reading this....

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:57:49 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I'm not entirely sure about that. I think game custom would permit one
> to change one's vote.

If that's the case, then why is there an explicit allowance for changing
one's vote on a proposal, but not for a hearing?

- --
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: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:22:16 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > I'm not entirely sure about that. I think game custom would permit one
> > to change one's vote.
> 
> If that's the case, then why is there an explicit allowance for changing
> one's vote on a proposal, but not for a hearing?

It is this that made me think about it.  If the rule for proposal voting
didn't allow changing votes, I would have had no problem letting Fortunato
chage eir vote.  But in at least one instance, changing votes is
regulated, so we would expect it to be so everywhere else.  The amount of
extra Harfing to change a vote is not overwhelming.  In fact, I think it
potentially can save some harfing.  If changing votes is impossible, then
there exists some incentive to delay voting, because there might be some
reason unrelated to the vote (ie a bribe) to vote a particular way.  IF
you have already voted, you can't accept.  For me anyways, it is more of
pain to deal with a whole bunch of stuff at once, then the same number of
votes over the whole voting period.  
Anyways, I wasn't sure.  I will submit a proposal here in a couple of
minutes to make it clear.

rufus

> 
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:43:55 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acak: and all my dice have a zero on them... Re: Dice server automated response

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Dice server wrote:

Okay, I admit I screwed this up.  ( I said 0 slakko, 1 Rex).  It seems
that not everyone thinks the zero indexing is The Way God Intended (tm),
and started numbering at one.  I appologize, and am unsure how to deal
with this.  Is this an unambigous typo, or need I do this again?

If this can stand, and election votes are immutable, I appoint Slakko
Senator.  If either or both of those conditions is impossible, I don't.

rufus
count tabula, who is very tired and has been banging eir head against
someone else's very broken code intermittantly for the last 16 hours.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> 
> Dice rolls requested by: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
> Rolls also sent to:
>     [email-masked]
>     [email-masked]
> 
> # 0 Slakko, 1 Rex Mundi
> 
> No. of sides on every die:      2
> No. of dice for every roll:     1
> No. of dice rolls requested:    1
> No. of rolls per line:          1
> 
>       1
> 
> Information on the dice server:
>    DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
>    Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.
> 
>    For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
>    subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/
> 
>    The dice server is provided by:
> 
>       Shadow Island Games
>       http://www.pbm.com/ds.html
> 
> 
> Original message follows:
> > From [email-masked]  Sun Jan 18 02:18:47 1998
> > Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
> >       id CAA20363 for <[email-masked]>; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:18:47 -0800
> > Received: from tye.infocom.com(199.120.185.1) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
> >       id sma020355; Sun Jan 18 02:18:38 1998
> > Received: from localhost (david@localhost)
> >       by infocom.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA28885
> >       for <[email-masked]>; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:19:05 -0500 (EST)
> > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:19:05 -0500 (EST)
> > From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > 
> > #P [email-masked]
> > #P [email-masked]
> > #S 2
> > #D 1
> > #R 1
> > #L 1
> > #C 0 Slakko, 1 Rex Mundi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.7
> 
> iQCVAwUBNMHXGD8NitsTFjcVAQERZQQAxC1Sgha2cox/aL9+8+WEB+z445GyiYKM
> Dd3T21zzgsc/H0w2P7CtAkUEPmSjkkq9Y3RWbufZW+i/utValBYG/5azffiMxhMU
> r27zNb3/Xb0HZkB85UIn1YIfmLMsrkY7aPQ9PvwufzTQQdgvT/PgTk09UnMPf7bX
> MACgLRys7YE=
> =XJxu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:31:37 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Common Sense Report (fwd)

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

No objections were made to this CSR.  It is therefore implemented.

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:50:59 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------44FCC561CBED247679071AB2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- --------------44FCC561CBED247679071AB2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 00:54:54 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
To: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512 (Goldenmean)

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> This has been reassigned to Vynd. 
> 
> > > 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.
> 

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.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

- --------------44FCC561CBED247679071AB2--

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:55:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

> You did post a judgement on CFJ 513, but not CFJ 512. I am assuming
> that the forwarded message from Vynd was not intended to be taken as
> an official CotC posting of the verdict, as it was certainly not
> presented as such.

Please consider the *next* thing that looks like it as 
*official*, if possible.  I did not realise there was
an *official* format.  I was trying to have a bit of fun;
the point being that *official* is in the eyes of the
beholder at this point.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:07:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

> However, as I said, I'm not sure. Maybe the previous Count Tabula
> might know, if he is reading this....

When I was count tabula, I ignored vote changes in elections,
because they attempted to change the game state in a way
not described in the rules.  I guess someone has pointed that
out already :)  I believe I notified the changer privately, and
they never CFJed, so I guess it was ok.

Also, I believe I attempted to vote in that election with an
EBS, but as I recall, I buried that in a treasure in both
threads, so the EBS vote would not count.  Sorry for the
confusion.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:33:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

> Please consider the *next* thing that looks like it as 
> *official*, if possible.  I did not realise there was
> an *official* format.  I was trying to have a bit of fun;
> the point being that *official* is in the eyes of the
> beholder at this point.

There isn't an *official* format, and I have no problem with players
trying to have fun. That is what we're here for, isn't it?

But the unusual-looking distribution, coupled with the nature of the
CFJ, left me with the impression that you did not consider your post
to be a CotC distribution of the verdict, and that you had no
intention of doing so - i.e., that you had already assumed case Y.
Thus my confusion (compounded further when you later suggested case X
was probably preferable).

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It seemed clear to me at the time....

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:42:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

> i.e., that you had already assumed case Y.
> Thus my confusion (compounded further when you later suggested case X
> was probably preferable).
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. It seemed clear to me at the time....

Sorry.  I think it is improper for the CotC to unilaterally assume
case X or Y, so I was hedging my bets :)  Hopefully the other CotC
will do the same.

BTW, my comment about PWCFJ apparently did not come across well.  It
comes from the IRS (rule 219):
 
> If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or 
> if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or
> if some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player 
> may call for judgement on a statement to that effect. If the 
> statement is judged true, and the judgement is not overruled, 
> then the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of
> the game. This rule takes precedence over every other rule for
> determining the winner of the game. 

This supports interpretation X, and I was wondering if this specific
custom, which was part of acka for a long time, until specifically
codified for PWCFJs, could be scoped to apply to all CFJs in favor
of interpretation X, or is it a specific exception, indicating 
interpretation Y (ie, the exception verifies the rule).

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:25:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

All right, I've come to a tentative decision that we should play the
game as case X. In other words, a CFJ with a verdict that invalidates
its own power to adjudicate (such as by invalidating its own
existence) can still be returned, reported on, and appealed.

There is very little game custom to go on here, and what little there
is would probably tip the scales in favor of case Y. (That is, a
self-invalidating CFJ verdict cannot be returned, or at least not in a
way that the rules recognize.) However, the prior situations that
addressed this issue were ones in which case X and case Y were
indistinguishable. Choosing to play the game in either way would
result in the same actions on the part of the players. As has been
noted, our situation is somewhat unique, and so I argue that the game
custom that would favor one case over another is not very convincing.

The final verdict on a CFJ is the one that is binding. Imagine that we
were playing under case X, and that somehow CFJ 513 got appealed in
both threads (never mind how - proposal magic, perhaps). Whatever the
final verdict was would hold sway. Even though the CFJ temporarily had
a verdict that invalidated itself in both threads, the final verdict
would still hold sway in the thread where it existed. Thus I think it
is reasonable that a temporarily self-invalidating CFJ should be
allowed to be dealt with normally - as long as its self-invalidating
verdict is finally overturned. (If it isn't, then of course it never
existed in the first place.)

Furthermore, I contend that spirit of the game favors case X strongly,
for the simple reason that trying to adhere to case Y in the current
situation is insanity. To collapse the threads we would have to
artificially manipulate the situation to get the same verdict on CFJ
512 or 513 in both threads before we could even proceed. That doesn't
strike me as the Right Thing. The judges on these CFJs have given us
their decisions. It's too bad that they conflict with each other, but
that's a better thing than having had them feel that their verdicts
had to match in order to avoid a game crash.

Let me emphasize that I'm not handing down a proclamation here. I'm
simply voicing my opinion based on my understanding and experience. I
welcome comments, particularly from our thread-split Speakers (who are
as much responsible for making this judgement call as anybody).

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:43:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PS

If Alfvaen and Balsamic Dragon find themselves in agreement with my
assessment, could we have the verdict on CFJ 513 released in this
thread, so that it may be appealed in both threads? Hopefully Slakko
will volunteer to be the appealer, so that we can minimize the thread
splitting.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:54:29 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> It doesn't say anything about changing one's vote.  If Fortunato's vote
> change is allowed, the results are Rex Mundi 8, Slakko 6, else...if 3.  If
> the change is not allowed the results are Rex Muni 7, Slakko 7, else...if
> 3.  If it is the case that the change is not permitted and there is a tie,
> I will randomly determine the winner.  I suspect that someone will CFJ
> this, and I hope that the dice make Rex Mundi the winner to avoid yet
> another spread split.  

Thanks to a note that Malenkai no longer in fact has an EBS (e got rid of
it in both threads), we have the following situation:

If Fortunato's vote was changed: Rex 7, Slakko 6, else...if 3
If Fortunato's vote was not: Rex 6, Slakko 7, else...if 3

I believe consensus is currently that the vote cannot be changed.  Unless
a CFJ is forthcoming, I am taking up my post as Senator.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:28:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Shameless Promotion

Hey everybody, don't forget to vote. I noticed that quorum was a
little low on that last batch of proposals. Understandable, with all
the confusion going on right now, but still, your vote is important.
We've got a little breather coming up now, as the next proposal isn't
due until Wednesday. (Hopefully that will give me time to catch up on
everything else.) But don't forget to get your votes in before then.

And in particular, don't forget to vote for Proposal 2595. And note
that, if this proposal is accepted, I as your Historian will recount
some of the past events of Ackanomic for the dates of your choosing.
("And that's the way it was ...") But, you need to send me your date
of choice by this coming Wednesday. If you send them to me on
Thursday, I can't guarantee I'll have the time to do the necessary
research. (And if you send them to me on Friday, it'll certainly be
too late.) So pick a date!

breadbox
your proud Historian
your busy Promoter
your tired Tabulator
your worried Postmaster
your pensive Justice
your frantic Rule-Harfer
your loquacious Spelling Exchequer
your picky Poet Laureate
your confused Archaeologist
how did I ever wind up winning the .sig wars??

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:35:47 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Prompt

In the thread where Malenkai never left, and announced eir intention to
resign as Clerk of the Courts, I appoint Balsamic Dragon the new Clerk
of the Courts.  So now e is CotC in both threads.  And so it won't be
paradoxical for em to release either version of the results for CFJ
512 or 513 or whatever.  (I presume e would be able to, since while the
results may have been distributed to me, I never posted them, and somebody
has to...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Indigo Girls:Rites of Passage
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon!

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:40:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Short

Slakko has correctly pointed out that I missed half a dozen Short proposal
bonuses in the past month or so.  These will be updated soon; the only
change to the last Fortnightly Dividends is that Niccolo Flychuck got an
additional A$3, which shouldn't cause too many effects.  Anything before
that thankfully falls under the veil of the retroactivity limit.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Indigo Girls:Rites of Passage
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
A sticky wicket runs deep.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:45:15 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

> Thanks to a note that Malenkai no longer in fact has an EBS (e got rid of
> it in both threads), we have the following situation:

> If Fortunato's vote was changed: Rex 7, Slakko 6, else...if 3
> If Fortunato's vote was not: Rex 6, Slakko 7, else...if 3

> I believe consensus is currently that the vote cannot be changed.  Unless
> a CFJ is forthcoming, I am taking up my post as Senator.

Does this happen yet, though?  rufus posted the results already, but if
they were incorrect before, maybe e hasn't officially released the election
results yet.

Hopefully there won't be any important Senate duties in the meantime,
though...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Indigo Girls:Rites of Passage
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
I gotta go - I'm expecting another call from you any minute.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:01:28 +0000
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Quitting

I hereby leave Ackanomic (might as well make it official).

	Antimatter
	[email-masked]
	Low on time

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:19:54 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

> rfs , whose key having the symbol typically found after the letter q in
> most of the words in the English langage doesn't want to work today. 
Sigh
> 
So how did you get "found" then? ;-)

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:34:19 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

> I believe consensus is currently that the vote cannot be changed.  Unless
> a CFJ is forthcoming, I am taking up my post as Senator.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko

I'll probably CFJ this once we have a single CotC again, based on
breadbox's argument. Probably you will still get the seat (on a
technicality ;-)).
I don't suppose I could persuade you that the honorable thing would be to
resign? ;-)

Rex Mundi, probably not a senator.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:38:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

> Let me emphasize that I'm not handing down a proclamation here. I'm
> simply voicing my opinion based on my understanding and experience. I
> welcome comments, particularly from our thread-split Speakers (who are
> as much responsible for making this judgement call as anybody).

Well, I think the issue of X vs Y, assuming they are the only 
reasonable contenders (and I am will to make *that* proclamation),
should be decided by CFJ, now that we have the CotC business
sorted out.  Indeed, if it comes down to SotG, I agree with X.
However, if the rules do not allow such handwaving, I suppose I
don't think it would be to nomicky to allow it either (don't get
me wrong, its only handwaving if the rules don't allow it, and
a CFJ should verify what the rules do and do not allow, or how the
rules in question should be interpreted).

Malenkai
thread-split speaker

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:36:45 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  Senate voting results...

here are the votes minus Malenkai's non-existent ebs:  slakko 7 Rex 6
else...if 3

REX Mundi	Malenkai
Rex Mundi	**two-star
Rex Mundi	Alfvaen
Rex Mundi	Fortunato  // if change possible
Rex Mundi	Rex Mundi
Rex Mundi	Vynd
Rex Mundi 	Vynd's EBS
Slakko		Fortunato
Slakko	Balsamic Dragon
Slakko	Slagothor
Slakko	ThinMan
Slakko	slakko
Slakko 	 Bill the Pirate King
Slakko 	rufus
else...if	Red Barn
else...if	TGW
else...if 	else...if

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Thanks to a note that Malenkai no longer in fact has an EBS (e got rid of
> > it in both threads), we have the following situation:
> 
> > If Fortunato's vote was changed: Rex 7, Slakko 6, else...if 3
> > If Fortunato's vote was not: Rex 6, Slakko 7, else...if 3
> 
> > I believe consensus is currently that the vote cannot be changed.  Unless
> > a CFJ is forthcoming, I am taking up my post as Senator.
> 
> Does this happen yet, though?  rufus posted the results already, but if
> they were incorrect before, maybe e hasn't officially released the election
> results yet.
> 
> Hopefully there won't be any important Senate duties in the meantime,
> though...:-)
> 
> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Indigo Girls:Rites of Passage
> Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
> I gotta go - I'm expecting another call from you any minute.
> 

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:03:14 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: just silly

> You are not mistaken; Rule 836 "Down the River" does contain the words
> "tarred and feathered". However, The Gingham Wearer did not change the
> silly words within the seven days after proposal 2560 was accepted, so
> they are still "tarred and feathered". (If he did and I didn't see it,
> let me know.)

Are you sure? I don't seem to recall this and having checked through I
can't seem to find it. I believe that the smiley/brackets proposal, number
2568 contained the words "tarred and feathered" but was rejected.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:28:40 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fictionary: Round 2 results

The correct definition was:

4. The Indian ferret.

No-one guessed the correct definition so I score two points. The updated
points totals are included in the table below.

Player              Defn.   Voted For    Points    Total
Slakko                8         1           0        2
The Gingham Wearer    4        (Br)         2        2
Vynd                  5         1           0        0
Alfvaen               1         2           4        4
/dev/joe              6         2           0        2
Balsamic Dragon       2         7           2        5
breadbox              7         1           1        3
else...if             3         1           0        0

All definitions were the correct part of speech except for:

3. To drive hither and thither.

which was submitted by else...if and is subject to ridicule. The next
braniac is Vynd.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:03:35 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: politeness moon 102 Re: Acka: Vulcan Swinger's Play

Slakko has called a politeness moon hearing on /dev/joe.  You know what to
do.  

(okay, since the rule says I have to:  Reply to vote.  valid votes are Yes
it was polite and "No, it was not polite."

)

rufus
Count Tabula, hearing harfer

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > The Scum known as slakko scrawled:
> > > If it is found that Rule 1240.9 does define a legal type of move, I note
> > > that the Vulcan Swinger's play was not legal as e did not use the syntax
> > > for a move, replacing the destination square with "off-board".  I see
> > > "off-board" nowhere in /dev/joe's message.  Of course, the play was
> > > equally illegal if Rule 1240.9 does not define a legal type of move.
> > 
> > As Niccolo Flychuck noted, legal syntax has been abolished and replaced with
> > unambiguous statement of the play to be made, so the description of how to
> > specify the move in 1240.9 is meaningless.  Also as Niccolo pointed out,
> > R1240.9 does not define another type of atomic play, but rather, another
> > type of play, which 1230.2 does not rule out.
> 
> But like I pointed out, if it isn't an Atomic Play, then it alone does not
> constitute a legitimate play.  It would have to be followed by a
> placement, which it wasn't.
> 
> > In any case, this is the straw that broke the Camel's back.
> > 
> > The Vulcan swinger hereby declares WAR on the SPAM swinger, regardless of
> > the way this is ultimately decided in the courts.  Slakko, consider all
> > your chess pieces mine.
> 
> Is this polite?  I hardly think so.
> I am calling a Politeness Moon on this message, for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) A declaration of war is not polite.
> 2) An intention to continue regardless of court rulings is not polite.
> 3) Not considering my arguments in my followup to Niccolo's post as having
> any credibility worth mentioning is not polite (e omitted them).
> 
> Count Tabula, have some fun with this one. :-)
> -- 
> Duncan C. "This should be fun for a while" Richer aka
> Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
> Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger
> 

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #472
*******************************