Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #507
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Tuesday, February 3 1998       Volume 03 : Number 507

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:17:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CFJ 512

Has this ever been cleared up?  I was just trying to put up an
updated CFJ-by-player page, when I noticed this one still wasn't
finalized.

I'm still trying to find whether or not Crackfoo accepted the CFJ
or not.  I can find a message in which e refers to it, but not an
acceptance or refusal.  (Mind you, I missed at least one message
from em around that time, too...)

Okay, here, on January 21st e states that e judged CFJ 512 false,
but email to me was bouncing so I never got it.  If e posted no
public acceptance(and I never received a private one, while I was
Acting CotC), then this is a little bit late for acceptance-and-
verdict.  So we may have no choice but to consider em deadbeat,
and assign it to the Praetor(who should be able to judge it easily
enough, given the verdict of CFJ 513, or even judge it INVALID,
since it no longer matters...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In The Other Room--Mary Chapin Carpenter:He Thinks He'll Keep Her
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
I must have a rapier wit; everyone keeps parrying.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:27:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A Win for all Seasons

I hereby create 7000 Swingpoints in my possession.
I then convert 3500 of these into Points.

I believe this works, and have submitted the appropriate
CFJ already.

Malenkai
winner of cycle X, would the Fat Lady please sing :-)

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:28:33 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 512

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> Has this ever been cleared up?  I was just trying to put up an
> updated CFJ-by-player page, when I noticed this one still wasn't
> finalized.
> 
> I'm still trying to find whether or not Crackfoo accepted the CFJ
> or not.  I can find a message in which e refers to it, but not an
> acceptance or refusal.  (Mind you, I missed at least one message
> from em around that time, too...)
> 
> Okay, here, on January 21st e states that e judged CFJ 512 false,
> but email to me was bouncing so I never got it.  If e posted no
> public acceptance(and I never received a private one, while I was
> Acting CotC), then this is a little bit late for acceptance-and-
> verdict.  So we may have no choice but to consider em deadbeat,
> and assign it to the Praetor(who should be able to judge it easily
> enough, given the verdict of CFJ 513, or even judge it INVALID,
> since it no longer matters...)
> 

I seem to recall Crackfoo accepting this.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Song In The Other Room--Mary Chapin Carpenter:He Thinks He'll Keep Her
> Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
> I must have a rapier wit; everyone keeps parrying.
> 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:30:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A Win for all Seasons

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> I hereby create 7000 Swingpoints in my possession.
> I then convert 3500 of these into Points.
> 
> I believe this works, and have submitted the appropriate
> CFJ already.
> 
> Malenkai
> winner of cycle X, would the Fat Lady please sing :-)
> 

Too busy to do the reasoning for his appeal, he says.  Might have to leave
for the Czech Republic, he says...

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:36:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CFJ 527

I just noticed this, but CFJ 527 should not have been assigned to
Hoover 2300, as e was not an Active player when the CFJ was assigned.
Even though e is now...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--A Little Night Music Soundtrack
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
This tagline does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:50:46 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 128

Well, I rather suspect that Malenkai did *not* win the Cycle, but here is
something that should absolutely ensure without doubt that any further
moves of a similar nature would fail.  It also causes the Swingpoints Rule
to conform to conform to its customary, that is to say not un-customary,
interpretation.

The text of CSR 128:

Amend Rule 1044 Swingpoints by adding the following OUCH delimited text as
a seperate paragraph, appearing before any other text in the Rule.

OUCH
Swingpoints are tradeable entities.  Swingpoints may only be created as
described by the Rules.  Whenever the Rules call for someone or something
to recieve Swingpoints, and does not specify where those Swingpoints are
to come from, then new Swingpoints equal to the number owed that recipient
are created in its possession, and it is considered to have received its
Swingpoints.
OUCH

Delete section 3 of Rule 1044, and renumber section 4 to 3, and section 5
to 4.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:05:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Stripe

Slakko's Blue Cross Rank has reached 40 with the passage of Proposal
2637, so I hereby award em another Silver Stripe.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--A Little Night Music Soundtrack
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
My heart it is so big, I can't get through the door

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:35:49 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 128

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> Well, I rather suspect that Malenkai did *not* win the Cycle, but here is
> something that should absolutely ensure without doubt that any further
> moves of a similar nature would fail.  It also causes the Swingpoints Rule
> to conform to conform to its customary, that is to say not un-customary,
> interpretation.
> 
> The text of CSR 128:
> 
> Amend Rule 1044 Swingpoints by adding the following OUCH delimited text as
> a seperate paragraph, appearing before any other text in the Rule.
> 
> OUCH
> Swingpoints are tradeable entities.  Swingpoints may only be created as
> described by the Rules.  Whenever the Rules call for someone or something
> to recieve Swingpoints, and does not specify where those Swingpoints are
> to come from, then new Swingpoints equal to the number owed that recipient
> are created in "its" possession, and "it" is considered to have received "its"
> Swingpoints.
> OUCH
> "who's it?" hoover 2300

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:46:04 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Fat Lady

Nearly forgot...

The Fat Lady is singing.

Again.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--OMD:Locomotion
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Crossing every ocean, for the sake of locomotion...

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:46:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: A Win for all Seasons

> I hereby create 7000 Swingpoints in my possession.
> I then convert 3500 of these into Points.

> I believe this works, and have submitted the appropriate
> CFJ already.

> Malenkai
> winner of cycle X, would the Fat Lady please sing :-)

Well, we're still not sure whether it's Cycle 18 or not(though I
think it is), and now we may be into Cycle 19.

Am I getting a sense of deja vu?  How long has that loophole been
sitting there without anyone else noticing?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Herb Alpert:Spanish Flea
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Miscellaneous is always the largest category. --Slovotsky

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 01:59:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 154 (TRUE)

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >could be far more Annoying than the Annoyingness itself.  I chose not to
> >have Rex Mundi cover else...if's court costs because of this, and would
> 	I'm the Caped Crusader.  I don't pay the court cost.

That was supposed to be a bit of subtle comic irony on my part.

(In other words, I forgot.)

- -rico

At least one of my personalities is sane. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:03:21 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Last Cycle

For the moment, I am considering Cycle 18 to have begun at 17:39 Jan 28.
Sometime soon I may even figure out what happened during it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Hunters & Collectors:Say Goodbye
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Quick zephyrs blow, vexing daft Jim.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:21:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > 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"??

Not necessarily according to the rules of Nomic - according to the rules
of English.
It's much harder for us to modify those.

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:28:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A Win for all Seasons

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> I hereby create 7000 Swingpoints in my possession.
> I then convert 3500 of these into Points.

Lessee, Rule 1044, section3: "Swingpoints are Tradable".
Unambiguously interpreted as "tradeable", and implying its entityhood.
Therefore there is no way to create swingpoints which is not currently
described in a rule.

I note that malenkai is attempting to change the game state by a method
not described in the rules, and therefore because the game state is an
entity this method will fail anyway.

 
> I believe this works, and have submitted the appropriate
> CFJ already.
> 
> Malenkai
> winner of cycle X, would the Fat Lady please sing :-)
> 

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:31:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Why does Malenkai have to win >50% of the cycles?

I quote from Rule 500:

Something is an entity if and only if the rules specify that it is, or it
is defined by the Rules and Ackanomic tradition indicates that it is an
entity. 

Does "Ackanomic tradition" indicate that Swingpoints are entities?
Given that we have allowed them to have material effects on the game
state, and that we describe them as "tradable" in the Swingpoints rule, I
would say yes.

Therefore, Malenkai could not have spontaneously created 7000 Swingpoints,
as there is no rule enabling him to do so.

Yours,
Slakko
this was tried in .Nomic last week and failed there too
- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:35:02 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> Nearly forgot...
> 
> The Fat Lady is singing.
> 
> Again.
> 

Alfvaen is hearing things again.

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:43:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Attributes?

All references to attributes contained in the rules:

Rule 597:
. If any Part is in conflict with a prior attached Part, (i.e. the two
Parts would give the Monster mutually-exclusive attributes, (one says "the
monster is blue," the other "the monster cannot be blue.") or would lead
to a paradoxical or self-contradictory Blueprint) the new Part is
rejected, withers, and is discarded. 

Rule 850:
c) Trinkets and Majiks: The value the Trinket or Majik had when it was
donated. If it was once part of a Buried Treasure for more than 60
continuous days, it is an Antiquity, and its value is increased by 30%
(fractions truncated), upon donation, and it is no longer considered to
have once been part of a Buried Treasure for for that length for the
purposes of this sub-section, unless it again acquires that attribute. 

Rule 854:
the cost is deducted from his account, and he receives that mutation and
any special attributes associated with it described in this rule

. If he later wishes to have the mutation removed, he must pay a fee equal
to that for receiving the mutation, and he shall cease to have both the
mutation and any special attributes associated with it. 

Interestingly, the word "attribute" is nowhere defined in the rules, nor
does anything actually specify that it is an "attribute" anywhere in the
rules.  Does this mean "attribute" must be interpreted as it appears in
proper English?  And if so, does this mean that things like "Swinger for
SPAM" are attributes of Slakko?

I would also like to use the gooseberry argument at this point to note
that saying that one type of thing is a "special attribute" does not
prevent other things from being "attributes".  English is a very big
language :-)

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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 03:57:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Justices III

I've got another idea for fixing up the SC system:

Modify the penalty structure for frivolous appealers:

Make the maximum penalty 37 less the number of days that the Supreme Court
took to decide the matter.  
It seems reasonable - a trivial matter can be decided quickly and so an
appeal is more likely to have been frivolous, while matters which take
close to a month are clearly ones requiring insight, where the appellant
cannot be expected to have understood the correct answer in 3 days (after
all, the two justices took over 20!), and so where the max penalty should
be reduced.

Comments?

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 04:18:35 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Justices III

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I've got another idea for fixing up the SC system:
> 
> Modify the penalty structure for frivolous appealers:
> 
> Make the maximum penalty 37 less the number of days that the Supreme Court
> took to decide the matter.  

So if they take 38 days the max. penality is -1 points?  There is some
logic in this.  
Of course, the SC can give you 25 pt penalities now, so I don't know if it
would make a differance.

rufus

(Is the Major really, really slow this morning?)

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 04:34:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 519 Appeal

> 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...:-)

Heh. You would have been in trouble if you'd used that word in
Fictionary. Although I seem to remember that zeugma is a grammatical
term, which refers to parallel phrases in which the second phrase is
missing (say) the verb, it being understood that the verb is the same
as the preceding one. Or maybe not. Hm. Maybe that would have been a
good choice after all....

breadbox
tempted to go look it up
"Time racers like a stopwatch."

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 04:44:33 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: zeugma (was  CFJ 519 Appeal)

zeug-ma \'z:ug-me\
[L, fr. Gk, lit., joining, fr. zeugnynai to join; akin to L jungere
     to join -- more at YOKE]
:the use of a word to modify or govern two or more words usu. in such
     a manner that it applies to each in a different sense or makes
     sense with only one<``opened the door and her heart to the homeless
     boy'' is an example of zeugma> 

not the official dict., but good enough.

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:42:02 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: For Sure

>Well, the Dice Server managed to return the exact same result as before,
>so it is incontrovertible that Rex Mundi, The Gingham Wearer, else...if,
>and Fortunato are in Gaol for one day.  (Whether that day begins at the
>time Rex Mundi announced the departure of the rafting team or not, I
>don't know...)

Rex Mundi, The Gingham Wearer, else...if, and Fortunato, as co-conspirators
in a vicious and self-serving water-pollution plot, are placed together in
cell 53 of the Gaol, called by some the faunal hydroponics experiment and
by others the Tantalus project.  I'm afraid the details are classified, but
I'm sure you get the idea.  Maybe one of the prisoners can satisfy the
curiosity of the public once they are released -- if, that is, the
experience does not traumatize them too much.

ThinMan
Gaoler

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:44:08 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE (upheld))

>Is there any hope at all that Slakko won the Cycle, or should I stop
>considering it Cycle 17?

It is currently my opinion, which may or may not prevail in the Court,
that Slakko did win the cycle.  He just didn't win it on the date specified
in CFJ 523.

ThinMan
Justice

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:01:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 518 (FALSE)

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Call For Judgement 518 - January 26, 1998
> Judge 2:  K 2 (selected January 27, 1998, 9:30 a.m.)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> There is an Organization called "the standard Harfer Fee".
> 
> Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 1007 states that 
> >An attempt to perform this action fails if, at the time of the attempt,
> >(1) the organization does not own at least the standard Harfer Fee, or
> >(2) it is not legal for the organization to have the specified new name. 
> 
> At the time that The Gingham Wearer supported the suggestion for "the
> standard Harfer Fee" to change its name to "Klingon", Slakko owned "at
> least the standard Harfer fee".  Hence by Rule 1007 the attempt to change
> the name of "the standard Harfer Fee" failed, and hence it is still called
> "the standard Harfer Fee".
> 
> Judges Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 505 states:
> The standard Harfer Fee is A$25.
> 
> Thus when rule 505 came into its current form, the organisation that
> existed prior to that, with the same name, was changed into A$25.
> 
> Even were this not the case, Rule 505 clearly defines what the standard
> Harfer Fee is (A$25).
> Using this definition, it would seem fair to say that where the rules
> are concerned, the phrase "the standard harfer fee" is equivalent to
> "A$25".
> 
> Given that "the standard harfer fee" is a rule defined term, the most
> reasonable interpretation of rule 1007 would be that that, at least A$25
> is required for an organisation to change its name, rather than
> ownership of a particular trinket which happens to have a phrase in its
> name which means $A25.
> 
> If the organisation "the standard Harfer Fee" had continued to exist
> after rule 505 was altered to its current form, then since the
> appropriate protocol was followed, that organisation would have changed
> its name to Klingon
> 
> Either way, at the time that this CFJ was submitted, no organisation
> called the standard harfer fee existed.
> 
> This CFJ is FALSE.
> 
I'm not going to appeal this.
I'm just going to point out that K 2 made absolutely no mention of my
trinket "at least the standard harfer fee" in eir argument.  May I be told
why?

Yours,
Slakko
mystified and bewildered as always

- -- 
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: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:03:22 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Justices III

Slakko wrote:

>I've got another idea for fixing up the SC system:
>
>Modify the penalty structure for frivolous appealers:
>
>Make the maximum penalty 37 less the number of days that the Supreme Court
>took to decide the matter.  
>It seems reasonable - a trivial matter can be decided quickly and so an
>appeal is more likely to have been frivolous, while matters which take
>close to a month are clearly ones requiring insight, where the appellant
>cannot be expected to have understood the correct answer in 3 days (after
>all, the two justices took over 20!), and so where the max penalty should
>be reduced.
>
>Comments?

I see some merit in the idea.  The only real problem I have with is the
(admittedly small) additional harfing it requires.  The SC can always adopt
something of this sort as an informal guideline, too, without actually
putting it in the rules.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:17:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silver Moon Candidates

On the main list this time... :-)

Three members of the senate have voted in favor of the following
list of silver moon candidates; we have not yet heard from Balsamic
Dragon.  In some threads the voting period for the senate to produce
this list may have already ended, and in others it is just starting,
and in one thread I suppose it hasn't started at all.  In any case,
if the Silver Moon Committee has been called, this is the list of
candidates we produce:

1. The Parade Description most recently given by Calvin N Hobbes.
ftp://ftp.muppetlabs.com/pub/digests/ackanomic/98jan/v02.n484

2. Alfvaen's play of the card "time travel" in the most recently ended
YORL game.    http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackayorl.htm

3. A recent Phoebe post from else...if
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/phoebe.html#BM57

4. ThinMan's reading of a Scroll of Crumble on Mon, 8 Dec 1997.
ftp://ftp.muppetlabs.com/pub/digests/ackanomic/97dec/v02.n400

The YORL Game and Phoebe archive can be reached directly from the main
Acka page; the other URLs can be reached as follows:
  Take the link from the main page to the Postmaster's page.
  Take the link on the Postmaster's page to the FTP archive.
  Take the link on the FTP archive to ackanomic.
  Take the links for the month and digest you want.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:42:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 530 (else..if)

else..if has been selected.
]
Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 530 - February 3, 1998
Subject: Another Slakko Scam
Initiator: Slakko (sent February 2, 1998, 2:48 p.m.)
Judge: else..if  (selected February 3, 1998, 11:45 p.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:

It appears equally legal and illegal for Slakko to convert the trinket "A
Fun Little Scam Win" into Ackadollars

Slakko's Reasoning:

The Supreme Court's decision on CFJ 523 implies that the statement

"I creat a Trynket ..." will be treated as if it were
"I create a Trinket ..." by Rule 340.

But then according to Rule 340 we are looking at the phrase "I create a
Trinket ...".  But this means that it is not a spelling error, and so no
correction is made.  So we are really looking at "I creat a Trinket ..."

This all boils down to the definition of "treated" in the rules.
Treated, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, means:

1 a : to deal with in speech or writing : EXPOUND b : to present or
represent artistically c : to deal with : HANDLE <food is plentiful and
treated
with imagination -- Cecil Beaton>

Nowhere in this definition does it say "interpret" - nor does it do so in
the full Merriam-Webster definition.  Therefore we end up in an infinite
loop, where the treatment's application implies that the treatment is not
applied, which implies that the treatment is applied etc. etc.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:46:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 517 (TRUE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 517 - January 26, 1998
Subject: It s a bird, it s a plane, ...
Initiator: else...if
Judge: Slakko (deadbeat)
Second Judge:  Praetor (selected January 30, 12:30 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

else...if is unable to fly.

Reasoning:

Rule 947 states that "A player wearing the Chartreuse Cape has the
ability to fly as if he had a wings mutation."  A player possesing the
wings mutation may not fly if they have more than one head, as else...if
does.  Therefore else...if is unable to fly even though he is wearing the
Chartreuse Cape.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Rule 101, in part:

> Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall
> only have those effects, as specified by the rules.

Rule 342 describes how and when the Spelling Bee may fly.
Rule 620 describes how and when the Chartreuse Goose may fly.
Rule 835 describes how the game state may be changed by a player
'with flying' (which I construe as 'a player that can fly').

Flying is thus regulated by the rules.  No other rules, however,
including rule 854, describe a way for any entity besides the
Goose or Bee to fly.  (Players with Wings need not worry 
about dangling, and they may reattach buildings and suction cups
and the like, but no where does that rule, or any other, describe
flying, except as noted above).  In other words, Wings do not
confer the ability to fly in the first place. 

Rule 947 appears to confer the ability to fly:

> A player wearing the Chartreuse Cape has the ability to 
> fly as if he had a wings mutation.

but it does not.  Its like saying, 'a player with the cape may fly
as if e submitted a proposal'.  Since submitting a proposal confers
no ability to fly, the cape confers no ability to fly in this example.
Likewise, wings mutations do not confer the ability to fly, therefore
the cape does not either, therefore else...if may not fly via the
cape, nor via any other means, since flying is a regulated action, 
and the rules do not describe a way for him to do so, therefore the
statement I was asked to judge is TRUE.
I point out that if wings did confer the ability to fly, this CFJ
would be FALSE, because the restriction is that a player with an
extra head may not own wings, NOT that a player with an extra head
may not fly.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:50:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 531 (hoover 2300)

hoover 2300 has been selected.  (for real this time :)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 531 - February 3, 1998
Subject: Malenkai Win Attempt
Initiator: Malenkai (sent February 3, 1998, 12:29 p.m.)
Judge: hoover 2300 (selected February 3, 1998, 11:50 p.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai won a Cycle of Ackanomic on February 3rd, 1998.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Before rule 101 was amended to its current form by proposal
2637, it said, in part:

> The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in
> the rules.

Rule 500 describes what is and is not an entity.  In particular,
a thing is not an entity unless the rules say it is.  Thus the
game state was not an entity before proposal 2637 was accepted.  

Proposal 2637 did not describe a way to change the game state
from non-entityhood to entityhood, nor has any other rule or
proposal.  The fine point here is that the game state may only
be changed as described in the rules; transformation from
non-entityhood to entityhood is a change; and the rules do not
(nor did they) describe the process of this change, therefore 
it has yet to occur.

This could mean any number of things: 

a) The way rule 101 was harfed with the acceptance of
proposal 2637, what it says is false.  I find this completely
unreasonable.  The rules are true by definition.

b) Proposal 2637 failed in its attempted amendment, and the Rule
Harfer incorrectly represented the effects on the web page.
This is possible, but unlikely, especially when another interpretation
(provided below) exists that allows the amendment to have 
occurred as harfed.  Moreover, the rules do not really provide
a way to discard this amendment, unless it is ambiguous.  It
was clear.

c) There is a paradox here for the clever player, or the game has
crashed, in the fact that the game state is not an entity while 
rule 101 claims it is.  While this is possible, (indeed, the rules
claiming the game state is an entity may cause other problems), 
I believe that if this is the case, then it really doesn't matter 
whether or not I won in fact, because I have in principle (ie, I could
waste time with the other CFJ to cover the crash/paradox case; if
true, the game be unplayable at this point, so what is the point). 
 
There is only one reasonable interpretation of what actually happened
when rule 101 was amended by proposal 2637 that does not wreak havoc
with the above.  Before P2637, "game state" meant the complete collection
of all game state variables.  Now, it means some entity in the treasury,
but it therefore does NOT mean the complete collection of game state
variables, because we have already proven that that was NOT changed to
entityhood, because the rules did not describe a process by which it
was, in fact, transformed to entityhood.

Given that, a few things become unregulated and unprohibited.
In particular, creation of Swingpoints is now unregulated and
thus permitted (the only thing stopping their unregulated creation
before the fact that the collection of game state variables, of
which a player's Swingpoints is one, could only be changed as described
in the rules; this prohibition no longer exists).  I note that this 
is not true of A$ and points.  The rules explictly prohibit the act
of creating A$, and rule 668 describes a way to change your score.
Fortunately, the rules do not regulate creation and changing of
Swingpoint totals.

Thus, the creation and conversion of all those Swingpoints was
successful, and it gave me enough points for a point win.

Summary:

a) before P2637, the game state can only be changed as described
in the rules.  Here, 'game state' has customarily been construed
to mean the complete collection of Acka game state variables.

b) 'game state' is not an entity by rule 500.

c) p2637 claims 'game state' is an entity.  However, the rules
did not describe a way to change 'game state' to entity,
therefore 'collection of state variables' did not become an
entity when p2637 passed.  (A key point here is that proposals
are applied as described in the rules at the time they are
applied, even if the proposal changes those descriptions.
For example, if a proposal created a rule that required the
Rule Harfer to post the string 'xyzzy' everytime e applied a
proposal, e would not be required to post 'xyzzy' when harfing
*that* rule change).

d) after p2637 passed, the prohibition on changing 'collection
of state variables' was removed from rule 101.  Some thing
in the treasury now cannot be changed except as described in the
rules, but that thing is not 'collection of state variables'.

e) Many things remain regulated, because those actions are still
described in the rules, or the rules are explicit.  This is true
of points and A$, but NOT of Swingpoints.

f) With the prohibition on changing 'collection of state variables'
gone, in the cases where the change is unregulated, as in Swingpoints,
it becomes permitted, by rule 101, thus the creation is done by
this loophole; the conversion and win by traditional rules.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:52:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 527 (again) (Alfvaen)

This was sent out incorrectly the first time, so I have chosen a new judge:

Alfvaen has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 527 - January 30, 1998
Subject: Cycle Win
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: Alfvaen (selected February 3, 1998, 11:50 p.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:

In an alphabetical ordering of Ackanomic players, Slakko appears prior to
The Gingham Wearer.

Reasoning:  

Rule 340 determines alphabetical ordering as follows:

VII. Alphabetical ordering shall be determined by a word-by-word
comparison, each word compared letter-by-letter. For these purposes: A
word is considered to be delimited by whitespace; an initial 'The' or
'the' is ignored; a single string of digits is considered equivalent to a
letter; digital 'letters' precede alphabetical letters; accented letters
come immediately after the unaccented form of the letter; and
non-alphanumeric characters are ignored; and case is ignored. All else
failing, two words that are otherwise equivalent shall be sorted in ASCII
collation order. 

The text "A word is considered to be delimited by whitespace" is
superseded by the text "non-alphanumeric characters are ignored", which
appears later in the text, as space characters are not alphanumeric.
Hence, The Gingham Wearer would appear after Slakko in an alphabetically
sorted list of Ackanomic players.

Just one more reason to fix Rule 340.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:05:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stuff

Couple of things:

1.  	Did I win the auction for the vending machine?  I believe I had the
last bid of 
	$A 200.

2.	I will post the truth for the machine soon, I haven't forgotton about it
:)

3.	Is Device active now?  Does Hachiman want to be non-voting yet, since he
	wants to join an organization?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:10:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 527 (again) (Alfvaen)

> This was sent out incorrectly the first time, so I have chosen a new judge:

> Alfvaen has been selected.

As the author of the alphabetical ordering section of Rule 340(and
"Aleph Beth Gimel" before that, I accept this CFJ.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Billy Joel:Sleeping With The Television On
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
We fell in love then we fell out; both times there was no net.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:33:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> 1.  	Did I win the auction for the vending machine?  I believe I had the
> last bid of 
> 	$A 200.

Yes, sorry, I forgot to do this one.  I believe that the Butler auction
never happened, because I was not Archaeologist when I said I was starting
to build it.  And who knows if I am now...

> 3.	Is Device active now?  Does Hachiman want to be non-voting yet, since he
> 	wants to join an organization?

Device is still Pending; I'm not sure if e returned from eir undeclared
vacation or not yet.  Hachiman's votingness is up to Hachiman.  (Hmmmm...
if a player starts out non-voting and then becomes pending and then
active that way, are Whamiols still triggered?)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--REM:King of Birds
Current Book--Barbara Smucker:Underground To Canada
Giant purple watermelons!

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

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:04:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 531 (hoover 2300)

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> hoover 2300 has been selected.  (for real this time :)
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 531 - February 3, 1998
> Subject: Malenkai Win Attempt
> Initiator: Malenkai (sent February 3, 1998, 12:29 p.m.)
> Judge: hoover 2300 (selected February 3, 1998, 11:50 p.m.)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Malenkai won a Cycle of Ackanomic on February 3rd, 1998.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> Before rule 101 was amended to its current form by proposal
> 2637, it said, in part:
> 
> > The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in
> > the rules.
> 
> Rule 500 describes what is and is not an entity.  In particular,
> a thing is not an entity unless the rules say it is.  Thus the
> game state was not an entity before proposal 2637 was accepted.  

Malenkai is here ignoring "Ackanomic tradition" - which is clearly stated
if you look at Rule 500.  Now this becomes an interesting question of
interpretation, but given that there is a rule which calls Swingpoints
"tradable", and I believe that the tradition is that tradeable is a way of
referring to a class of entity, that by tradition Swingpoints are entities
and hence Rule 500 regulated.
> 
> Given that, a few things become unregulated and unprohibited.
> In particular, creation of Swingpoints is now unregulated and
> thus permitted (the only thing stopping their unregulated creation
> before the fact that the collection of game state variables, of
> which a player's Swingpoints is one, could only be changed as described
> in the rules; this prohibition no longer exists).  I note that this 
> is not true of A$ and points.  The rules explictly prohibit the act
> of creating A$, and rule 668 describes a way to change your score.
> Fortunately, the rules do not regulate creation and changing of
> Swingpoint totals.

Awarding of swingpoints is a way to change a swingpoint total.
See rule 1044 to see how the gaining of Swingpoints is regulated.

> f) With the prohibition on changing 'collection of state variables'
> gone, in the cases where the change is unregulated, as in Swingpoints,
> it becomes permitted, by rule 101, thus the creation is done by
> this loophole; the conversion and win by traditional rules.

"Traditional" rules? 

- -- 
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

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #507
*******************************