Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #506
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Monday, February 2 1998       Volume 03 : Number 506

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:32:01 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > The appealer's arguments are wholly out of line with the
> > long-established game custom that a misspelled word is "unambiguous"
> > if the correct word, in context, can be determined beyond reasonable
> > doubt. Spelling errors worse than those offered above have been
> > accepted in the past, and the Court can see no tenable argument that
> > this is not a valid interpretation of the rules. If it were not, then
> > the vast majority of past misspellings would be considered ambiguous,
> > and the rules would undoubtedly contain at least one paradox. (And
> > furthermore, the date in the statement under judgement would not be
> > recognized as an unambiguous misspelling of "January 27th", and this CFJ
> > would be trivially False.)
> 
> > As the rule states that misspellings are only recognized as such
> > during "rule-sanctioned spelling correction", it seems clear that the
> > Agenda Hat will not recognize the twice-quoted message as containing
> > misspellings.
> 
> I'm tempted to appeal this, although I realize that I can't really introduce
> anything new.  Basically I'm annoyed at having to unharf the end-of-cycle,
> and I myself am perfectly satisfied that the Hat's conditions were
> satisfied.  So I don't _want_ this verdict to stand, but I realize that I
> may not have a leg to stand on concerning the Rules.
> 
> Is there any hope at all that Slakko won the Cycle, or should I stop
> considering it Cycle 17?
> 

Well, CFJ 526 was found to be TRUE, and has not yet been appealed.  It
simply states that Slakko has won a Cycle of Ackanomic.  So at the moment,
it would appear we are in a thread where Slakko did not win on Jan 27th,
or whatever date its supposed to be, but has, in fact, won a Cycle.  The
only Cycle he coudl possibly have won is 17, all the other ones are
accounted for.  Now, as to how and when he won the Cycle, all I can say is
that it was probably after Jan 27th.  Personally, I agree that he has won,
but I expect that we will see some more CFJs, if only to clear up how.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Hunters & Collectors
> Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
> How do I know anything really exists?  Kick it *really* hard.
> 

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:33:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Is there any hope at all that Slakko won the Cycle, or should I stop
> > considering it Cycle 17?
> 
> (I meant, of course Cycle 18...but that's an unambiguous misspelling,
> isn't it?)

I only failed to win on the Tuesday.  I'm sure that given all the
different tactics I tried to get around Rule 340, that either I must have
(a) won it by now, or (b) proven that my Agenda Hat was impossible to
satisfy and probably should have been dumped by the Illuminatus.

Yours,
Slakko
still want that damn win
- -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:43:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retract

I retract CFJ 529.

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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:45:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Big Uh-Oh

I meant to only create the trinket in the event that CFJ 483 was judged
true.

Damn damn damn damn damn

Slakko
still want some damn win

I will point out that just because my trinket trick failed, someone else
can grab the win, should they want to, and should they believe it to be
morally correct.

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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:51:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Has Slakko Won Yet?

Here is the message I believe claims me a win given the SC's reasoning:
reprinted in full.  Sorry about the waste of bandwidth - but it is
designed to stop people running through the archives looking.

Yours,
Slakko
still want that damn win.
 -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:53:40 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: The unambiguous message: This is hopefully my last shot (no chance)

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> But letturc isn't a word. It is a sequence of random letters.

Definition of spell:

1. To form words with letters, esp. with the proper letters, either orally
or in writing. 

I claim that letturc, whenever I have said it, is a spelling of either
lettuce or letters.  There is no requirement that spelling be correct in
the definition of spelling.

Definition of word:

a constituent part of a sentence

Definition of sentence:

A combination of words which is complete as expressing a thought, and in
writing is marked at the close by a period, or full point.

So here we go.  I claim that my use of the text "letturc letturc letturc
letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc" in this sentence,
each instance of the text "letturc" as it occurs within this paragraph
meaning either lettuce or letters but not both, is a blatant attempt to
win.  Each of the instances of the word "letturc" is a word, because it is
included as part of a sentence.  All of them are spelt, but not spelt
correctly, however, the correct spelling is unsure because each word could
be lettuce or letters, but it is impossible to determine which because my
intent is to leave it impossible to determine.  As a result, there are at
least 10 words in this message, all of which happen to be "letturc", which
are misspelled, but not unambiguously misspelled, and hence they do not
fall victim to being "treated" as ordinary words under Rule 340.
Therefore, in the event that I have not already won a Cycle of Ackanomic,
this event sets my Agenda Hat Condition to True and I have won a Cycle of
Ackanomic.

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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 19:09:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE)

I appeal this verdict.

> Call For Judgement 526 - January 30, 1998
> Judgement: TRUE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Slakko has won a Cycle of Ackanomic.
 
Appellant's Reasoning:

I'd like the Court to take a closer look at 'attributes on
the Player/Entity page'.  Throughout the whole discussion,
that seemed the most dubious, and I personally do not 
feel it has been satisfied, but will accept the Court's
stamp of approval or disapproval in any case.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:05:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

I appeal CFJ 519.

I will provide reasoning via my Bronze Torch when I have
more time, but in case I do not get to it, the gist of
my argument is based on the fact that the lexical 
analysis of the rule requires the string 
'Rule 1 is repealed. #1' to be "lexed" as a proper noun,
and that lexical analysis occurs before high-level
semantic analysis occurs.  (It cannot be denied that
low-leval semantics occur in the lexical process itself
in natural language, but that fact will actually bolster my
argument)

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:10:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

>> As the rule states that misspellings are only recognized as such
>> during "rule-sanctioned spelling correction", it seems clear that the
>> Agenda Hat will not recognize the twice-quoted message as containing
>> misspellings.
> 
> I'm tempted to appeal this, although I realize that I can't really
> introduce anything new.  Basically I'm annoyed at having to unharf
> the end-of-cycle, and I myself am perfectly satisfied that the Hat's
> conditions were satisfied.  So I don't _want_ this verdict to stand,
> but I realize that I may not have a leg to stand on concerning the
> Rules.

Please note that this CFJ specifically concerned itself with Slakko's
win attempt on January 27th, and the Court only addressed that issue.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:17:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Um ... "Whoops"

> The Frankenstein Monster rules override what normally happens to
> Gadgets in the case of Frankenstein's Monsters.  It states that the
> Blueprint is hidden away.  It makes no mention of the Blueprint
> ending up in the rules.  Besides, how can something be both hidden
> away and in the ruleset?  Unless this becomes Blind Nomic.  Uh oh.

A Blueprint *is* a rule, by definition. Besides, if it wasn't then
Valaraukar couldn't have any of its wonderful capabilities.

I think one could safely argue that the Blueprint being "hidden away"
is simply an emphasizing of the statement that no one is ever allowed
to use it again.

I don't like it any more than you do, but here we are.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:21:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

> I only failed to win on the Tuesday.  I'm sure that given all the
> different tactics I tried to get around Rule 340, that either I must
> have (a) won it by now, or (b) proven that my Agenda Hat was
> impossible to satisfy and probably should have been dumped by the
> Illuminatus.

"impossible to satisfy"??

I for one would be disappointed if anyone had an Agenda Hat that was
possible to satisfy under the current ruleset. You should have to make
at *least* one significant change to the rules to fulfill your Agenda.

Cycle Wins are supposed to be HARD.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 20:25:26 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 528 (rufus)

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> rufus has been selected.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 528 - February 2, 1998
> Subject: Judgment Overturn
> Initiator: Slakko
> Judge: rufus  (selected February 2, 1998, 2:00 p.m.)
> Judgement:

I accept. 

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:03:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 521 appeal

> Since no one else seems inclined to do so, I find I am forced to
> appeal CFJ 521 myself. As required by Rule 217, I am also exercising
> my "option" under Rule 417 to decline to judge this appeal. Praetor
> Malenkai will be the Acting Justice in my stead.

I did intend to appeal this, actually, but I didn't end up having the
time to muster a good appeal argument.  I probably would've gone with
a Tammany-based argument myself...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Berlin:Count Three And Pray
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Delete them all and let Norton sort them out.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:03:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Donation

> I approve the suggestion to destroy the trinket "Vulcan".

> Since ThinMan and Malenkai are proxying their approval, and Vynd has
> already approved it, it happens.

Can Orgs destroy Trinkets?  Yes, I suppose that the rule in question only
specifies the owner of the trinket, not "the player who owns"...

> Then, I approve the name change suggestion.

> Since ThinMan and Malenkai are proxying their approval, and Vynd has
> already approved it, it happens.

> Just in case this fails for some reason: If there is nothing named Vulcan,
> I create a trinket named Vulcan worth A$25, with the description
> "It is green-blooded." :-)

I think it succeeds, so this latter trinket is not created.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Berlin:Count Three And Pray
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Pencil--a user-friendly graphic interface with a delete module.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:03:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CSR 127 (?)

> We had more sloppiness than usual in the last batch of proposals.

> Firstly, Proposal 2654, "Prolix Propositions", created a rule without
> specifying a number, and I forgot to give it one myself when I
> released the voting results. I would be grateful to the Speaker if he
> could release a CSR to renumber it to 207.5 for me, so that I don't
> have to maintain another one-rule web page.

Ask and ye shall, eventually, receive.

I hereby submit the following CSR, which I believe is numbered 127:

Renumber Rule 2654, "Prolix Propositions", to 207.5.

{{[ While I'm at it, and while I still have renumbering abilities,
let me try to fix some of the rules that Slakko was unable to give
the sub-rule numbers he wanted in the Party Chess suite... ]}}

Renumber Rule 1230.22, "Stabitooum", to 1230.30.
Renumber Rule 1230.23, "Winning a Hand", to 1230.40.
Renumber Rule 1230.24, "Party Chess Piece Gess", to 1230.22.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Berlin:Count Three And Pray
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
And if you say wash the rain, do you mean wash the pain from me?

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:11:23 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

> I only failed to win on the Tuesday.  I'm sure that given all the
> different tactics I tried to get around Rule 340, that either I must have
> (a) won it by now, or (b) proven that my Agenda Hat was impossible to
> satisfy and probably should have been dumped by the Illuminatus.

Okay.  For now I'll try to harf it as if your "letturc" message had
satisfied the condition.  Hopefully the appeal of CFJ 526(?) will
determine, if the cycle was won, when the win occurred.  (Consider this
a plea to the Justices...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Lover Speaks
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
I'm tolerant of your fruitcake-like beliefs.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:43:25 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> I appeal CFJ 519.
> 
> I will provide reasoning via my Bronze Torch when I have
> more time, but in case I do not get to it, the gist of
> my argument is based on the fact that the lexical 
> analysis of the rule requires the string 
> 'Rule 1 is repealed. #1' to be "lexed" as a proper noun,

I don't see why this should be done like this.  It is the case that it was
inserted as a proper noun;  it need not be the case that it remains a
zproper noun.  The very first thing in the rules is a proper sentance
which says that the rule is repealed.  It then decends into gibberish,
some of it quite ungramatical, I might add.  Where do the rules say that
ammendments to rules cannot change the part of speech?  If someone edits
Beldin's Pan'ts rule, why can't they replace a noun with a verb, or vice
versa? 

Lexical anaylsis of the first sentace shows a noun phrase and verb phrase.
I don't care that an instant before it read something else.  The CFJ is
required to judge the rules as they exist when judegement is called for,
not as they used  to be. 

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:10:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

> Where do the rules say that ammendments to rules cannot change 
> the part of speech?  If someone edits Beldin's Pan'ts rule, 
> why can't they replace a noun with a verb, or vice versa?

They do not, in general.  However, the specific amendment in question
replaced a proper noun with another proper noun.  Like I said, I
may not have the time to write formal reasoning on this, but we
must choose how to lexically interpret all rule text, and I will
argue that "lexing" (flexing :-)) the text in question as the 
proper noun that it is is more reasonable than lexing it as a verb
phrase followed by garbage.  My argument will start with linguistics,
point out that rule 500.1 defines a different alphabet for its 
proper nouns than traditional languages (with all characters created
equally), point out that lexing in natural language has a low-level
semantic component (unlike flex), and then finish with reasoning 
similar to that in CFJs 415 and 452 (ie, there is no reason to all
of the sudden construe what it clearly a proper noun into a verb 
phrase + garbage; why would a VP + garbage be favored over a known 
proper noun, forgetting all the other BS?).

Since I may be going to Prague CZ on short notice, this may have to
suffice for now.  I think if you think about it, and see where my 
argument is going from the skeletons provided so far, and realise that
some sort of lexing must occur before high-level interpretation, as in
most lingusitic interpretation, then the amendment did not cause 
rule 1 to be repealed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:15:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

rufus wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> > the gist of my argument is based on the fact that the lexical 
> > analysis of the rule requires the string 
> > 'Rule 1 is repealed. #1' to be "lexed" as a proper noun,
> 
> I don't see why this should be done like this.  It is the case that it was
> inserted as a proper noun;  it need not be the case that it remains a
> zproper noun.  The very first thing in the rules is a proper sentance
> which says that the rule is repealed.  It then decends into gibberish,
> some of it quite ungramatical, I might add.  Where do the rules say that
> ammendments to rules cannot change the part of speech?  If someone edits
> Beldin's Pan'ts rule, why can't they replace a noun with a verb, or vice
> versa? 

As I see it, the difference here is that the Beldin's Pants rule and the
rule that specifies how it can be amended does not say anything about
the meaning of the new word or old word.  It is certainly *possible* to
make an amendment to Beldin's Pants which changes a noun to a verb.
Despite this, if such a change created an ambiguous statement, with the
new rule having two possible interpretations based on whether the new
word is a noun or verb, and previously a noun was in that position, this
would certainly sway my opinion in favor of the interpretation that the
new word is still a noun.  Such a change (noun to verb) inherently also
changes the meaning of some of the words nearby, and as long as those 
other words remain, there is some implicit game custom as to the meaning
of those words, which lasts (in my opinion) until the context no longer
supports that meaning.  For instance, if "Time flies like an arrow." was
in the Beldin's Pants rule, and somebody changed "Time" to "Fruit", I
would judge that "fruit" is still a noun, the subject of the sentence,
and "flies" is a verb, rather than the alternative that "flies" is a noun
and the subject, "fruit" an adjective, and "like" is the verb.  However,
if the next change was to change "arrow" to "banana", the original 
interpretation no longer makes sense, and the alternative wins out.

In this particular case, the amending mechanism doesn't even quote 
the text to be added, but refers to it as the new name of Vulcan.
Clearly, then, the initial meaning of this text is a proper noun, not
the alternative -- a sentence followed by a number.  Similarly to the
previous case, if somebody somehow amended this rule subsequently, to
change one of those "#1"s to something else, the phrase would no longer
correspond to the name of the organization, so the next-best
interpretation, that it is a sentence and an unrelated word following it,
would win out.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:43:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

> For instance, if "Time flies like an arrow." was
> in the Beldin's Pants rule, and somebody changed "Time" to "Fruit", I
> would judge that "fruit" is still a noun, the subject of the sentence,
> and "flies" is a verb, rather than the alternative that "flies" is a noun
> and the subject, "fruit" an adjective, and "like" is the verb.  However,
> if the next change was to change "arrow" to "banana", the original 
> interpretation no longer makes sense, and the alternative wins out.

Hmmm, is Groucho Marx on the Literature List?  :-)  Besides, who's to say
that Bananas can't fly?  (For the record, though, it was several readings
of the original joke before I realized the context had changed...I
believe the technical term for that is "zeugma"...well, there goes another
Fictionary word...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Fat Man Waving:The Habit of Gravity
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Philip K. Dick was full of Ubik witticisms.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #506
*******************************