Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #513
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, February 7 1998      Volume 03 : Number 513

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 03:48:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Yeeeeee-haw!

A few days ago I posted a message in which I was expressing exlicit
disinterest in playing Grab-A-Donkey. I wrote something like : "I am
expressing disinterest in playing GAD"

I should be removed from the list of players below.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:

> If the subject line sent shivers down your spine, it's well that it did,
> 'cause it's time for a fun-filled, thrill-packed, hard-riding game of
> Grab-A-Donkey!
> 
> A couple of notes, first off.  If you don't want to play, you can ignore
> the rest of the messages, or resign in the first round, depending on
> whether you want someone to be able to snatch your donkey.  Second, this
> message is going to the main list because everyone is a player.  All
> further messages will go to acka-games, to spare the non-players.
> Finally, I was trying to wait until the calmest time I could to start
> this, but I decided I'd have to wait for a long time.  Wranglers don't
> like waiting ;)
> 
> I announce the start of Round 1.  Reply to this message with your move.
> The current GAL is:
> 
> Alfvaen
> Balsamic Dragon
> Bill the pirate king
> breadbox
> Calvin N Hobbes
> Crackfoo
> Device
> /dev/joe
> else...if
> The Gingham Wearer
> Goldenmean
> Guy Fawkes (Welcome back!)
> Hachiman
> Hoover 2300
> Illusion
> K 2
> Karma
> Malenkai
> Niccolo Flychuck
> Red Barn
> Rex Mundi
> Robert Sevin
> rufus
> Slagothor
> Slakko
> ThinMan
> two-star
> Vynd
> 
> 
> 28, that's quite a few :)  Good luck, players!  (For those of you who
> haven't played, the Rule describing GAD is number 1213).
> 
> 
> - ------------------
> Aaron Keesler
> Lotus Notes Administrator
> Intranet Administrator
> Adtran, Inc.
> - ------------------
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 03:56:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Yeeeeee-haw!

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> A few days ago I posted a message in which I was expressing exlicit
> disinterest in playing Grab-A-Donkey. I wrote something like : "I am
> expressing disinterest in playing GAD"

Yes, but this was a prospective action, made before the game started, with
no knowledge as to when the game would start, or even if the game would
start.  I would therefore submit that given the judgement on CFJ 486 (I
believe - whichever one said I didn't retract the previous CFJ) prohibits
such an action from being legal.

Hence you would actually have to resign or decline now.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 09:30:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: The agorans are singing about us

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 21:22:52 +1100
From: Kieron Jarvis <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: Ambassador's report

> INP 360:

FOR

> I hope you will see this repetition as a fun curiosity and not as a
> waste of your time, so please vote!

Not at all !  I like it !  This is the sort of stuff that Jesters sit in
beer halls and sing about.  :o)
There once was a Nomic that split,
Over whether dereg. was legit,
Whether e'd stay,
Or be on eir way,
Was the problem that Malenkai hit.

While over a judgement they fought,
(Who was the Clerk of the Court),
On went the game,
Proposals they came,
But they ended up counting for nought.

I know this poem aint great,
But here the time is quite late,
If you can do better,
Then write out a letter,
And send it to Agora mate !

<Jester puts down eir lute and beats a hasty retreat to the bar>

<Where e orders a MILK ?!>

Jester
- --
You'll find that common sense rarely is.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:02:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 9

Volume 1, Issue 9
February 7, 1998
In this issue:
1. Editorial
2. Poll Question #2
3. More Ackanomic News
4. Special Report: The Party Chess Free For All
5. Sub-Game Sandwich
6. Advertisement
 
Editorial
Through thread splits, through fire, through Tornado, through Locusts,
Acka survives and continues to thrive.  New players and old players joined
us this week, with Guy Fawkes returning from the dead to cheer us all,
while Illusion entered the realm from where we know not.  May their stays
in Acka be pleasant and full of harf.
As is usual, the game is currently in a technical thread split.  Malenkai
claims to have won the game, but currently few people are harfing the game
that way.  The issue has gone to the Supreme Court without an initial
TRUE/FALSE verdict being delivered, with the original judge Hoover 2300
remaining on the fence.  At least, rumours had it that what he said meant
he was remaining on the fence - this particular editor wasn't sure. 
Have another good Ackan week - hopefully I'll see you again next Saturday.

Poll Question
This is what I said last week:
"Yes, The Infrequent Ackan is now running the "Archive of Unofficial
Polls". The first question this week is: What, if anything, do you think
should be done to change the current system of judgements, appeals and
Supreme Court decisions?
To vote, please reply direct to the editor of the paper at
[email-masked]. One entry from those received will be chosen at random to
receive a handsome Trinket as a prize. (Guaranteed market value A$5)."
Well, I've decided to run that competition again - seeing as there were NO
entries.  This time, to make sure that I don't  miss any entries (should
there be any), I'll ask you to address your email to me marked (Acka:
Poll).  Please enter: it costs you only a little of your time, and it
could certainly help clear up Ackan perceptions over what is the true way
forward.
 
More Ackanomic News
The Supreme Court ruling on CFJ 526 saw the Cycle definitely end last
week.  Slakko was reported as saying "Lettuce for everyone!", obviously
delighted by the verdict.  Ackans young and old were happy to see the
annoying misspelling messages end, and congratulated Slakko for stopping
the trend.  He is reported to be considering a sharp increase in spelling
correctness following his win.
The Ackanomic duels are almost at an end.  /dev/joe appears to have a
stranglehold on the Viruses duel, seeing Slakko blanked in Gamepoint
terms.  Slakko appeared to be mounting a challenge, but this may well have
been too little too late.
 
Special Report: The Party Chess Free For All
Today saw the end of the first ever Party Chess Free For All.  But before
it had even ended, questions were being asked about its continued
existence.  Swinger Alfvaen was quoted as saying that it put "far too much
pressure" on some Swingers, who were unwilling to commit the necessary
time to mastering the board for two weeks.  In other quarters, calls were
made to restrict some moves in the Free For All, to restore the balance
that some feared it was lacking.
Before we get into these matters, a quick precis of the action during the
Free For All.  In these two weeks, we saw a total of 20 plays made.  This
compares to approximately 10 plays per fortnight over the previous couple
of months, a 100% increase in game speed.  Of these plays,  9 were
placements, 9 moves and only 2 were captures.  This shows that the Free
For All has produced a much more complicated board than it started out
with.  Such complications will no doubt increase the strategic offerings
available.
The spread of Swingers making the moves was also informative.  Both Slakko
and The Gingham Wearer slotted in 5 moves, Slakko's theoretical maximum
being reached while The Gingham Wearer just missed out on sneaking in a
record-setting sixth move.  The remainder of the moves were split
Goldenmean 4, /dev/joe 3, Niccolo Flychuck 2 and Alfvaen 1, while Red Barn
did not make any move for the whole fortnight, and is now in double Check.
The Free For All was an interesting experience, with a total of 6 checks
created, a much denser collection of checking moves than any other segment
in Chess history.  With some minor amendments, it is hoped that the Free
For All concept will continue into the future, so that the Chess-Umpire
can inject some life into the game whenever things appear to be becoming
dull again. 

Sub Game Sandwich
A delectable collection of subgame treats to delight the gourmand.
Viruses
Round 10 of Viruses is complete, and The Gingham Wearer's lead continues
to stretch.  Will the other players band together to reduce his count, or
will altruism be damned as individuals compete to grow sufficiently fast
to overtake?  Can a combined assault on TGW succeed, or will it falter as
the other players' viruses enter unsafe configurations?  Only time will
tell, so stay tuned. The number of players is down, but the strategy is
hotting up, with multiple players into double digit virus counts.
Fictionary
Fictionary's first cycle continues, with the game currently in a
definition submission half-round.  The correct definition of fulguration
was guessed twice, but the bonus voting to Alfvaen has only extended his
lead at the head of the game.  His mastery of language appears to be
unstoppable - but is it?  Stay tuned to acka-games for more.
Mediocrity
rufus's mediocre performance continues his success in Mediocrity.  Without
a point so far, he is currently in the mediocre Gamepoint place.  Can
someone force him out?  Will rufus ever win a round?  Your questions will
be answered by Rex Mundi - Mediocrity Referee.  Just wait for the next
instalment in our Mediocre saga.
YORL
Ye Olde Rusty Lantern has made a welcome comeback, with Game 2 starting up
this week.  The story this time appears to be a little less medieval and a
lot more western, with a cowboy as our current focus.  The ice-cold
Malenkai has interrupted the tale, and the Barkeep is waiting for news of
the next segment.  Pull up a bench (if there is ever an empty one) and
join in the tale.  Fun for the whole family!
Grab a Donkey
The grand-daddy of them all is back.  Grab-a-Donkey, the subgame for all,
has made a re-appearance with Fortunato in the Wrangler's gear.  This GAD
is going to be the biggest ever, with 27 or 28 people hustling for some
rustling.  So get your chaps on, sharpen up those lariat skills, and cover
your donkey well, 'cause it's gonna be a rip-roaring ride for a good 15
rounds.

Advertisements
The Infrequent Ackan is still, still  looking for interviews. If you've
held an office in Ackanomic for more than 2 months, then contact us for
interview information. PLEASE CONTACT US - WE'RE DESPERATE FOR AN
INTERVIEW! 
The Ackan is now also running a pool on the length of the Grab-a-Donkey
game.  First come first serve for each length, put A$5 into the pool (by
sending it to Slakko), and the winner takes it all.  In the event that
no-one correctly guesses the number of rounds, the outright closest will
take it all, or it will be shared between the equal closest.
Lengths available in all positive integers, so why not have a gamble?
The Infrequent Ackan - making your Acka a more interesting place.

The Infrequent Ackan, first to you with Ackan news.
Copyright  Duncan Richer writing under the pseudonym of "Slakko", 7/2/98.
Check us out on the web, at
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/infrequent.html 

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:06:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Treasure!

> Thank you, Slakko, for your generosity.  I hereby pay A$25 to the
> Treasury and create an organization called the Treasure-Hunting League.
> For now I will give it an open membership policy so anyone interested
> can join.

  I do so.
  I doubt I'll be active, but mabye I can spread some hints on the Penguin
treasure...

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
Turn on, or I'll boot you downstairs!

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:13:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 9

> The Ackan is now also running a pool on the length of the Grab-a-Donkey
> game.  First come first serve for each length, put A$5 into the pool (by
> sending it to Slakko), and the winner takes it all.  

I am giving Slakko A$5 to enter the pool.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:14:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: voting

> The email address is [email-masked], and the syntax is pretty
> much unchanged. (Note that I'm not doing automated retractions, though
> - I think that caused too many problems for Mohammed, with people
> forgetting to send either the command or the public statement.)

  Hmm, could that address be delcared a public forum for the purpose of
issuing retractions, iff the bot sends a public statement?
  Just a thought, probably not a useful one.

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit rec.games.video.classic and find out about Pac-Man's contemporaries!
This is a quiz.  This is only a quiz.  Had this been an actual test...

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:20:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 9

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > The Ackan is now also running a pool on the length of the Grab-a-Donkey
> > game.  First come first serve for each length, put A$5 into the pool (by
> > sending it to Slakko), and the winner takes it all.  
> 
> I am giving Slakko A$5 to enter the pool.

The deadline for entries in this pool will be when Round 2 of GAD Results
are posted to a public forum.

Yours,
Slakko
Unofficial Bookie
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:44:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: The agorans are singing about us

> There once was a Nomic that split,
> Over whether dereg. was legit,
> Whether e'd stay,
> Or be on eir way,
> Was the problem that Malenkai hit.

Interesting. Of course, this doesn't beat .Nomic where Malenkai
is a god and has *two* churches worshipping him. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:55:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Game submission

This is a Game Submission to create a game (and I suppose a rule too)
called Word un-asociation. The rule detailing this game will read as
follows (delimited by PETANQUE):

PETANQUE
I. Equipment needed:

Gamepoints as necessary.

II. Number of players:

minimum: 2; maximum: the number of active players when an instance of Word
Un-Asociation is initiated minus one. Referees: one.

III. Starting an instance of the Game: 

As described in rule 1250.1, section VI. Additionally, the player
announcing the start of the Game shall randomly assign each player a
different integer ranging from 1 to N, where N is the number of players in
the game. All players shall be randomly assigned numbers in this way,
including non-active ones. 

IV. Rules of the game: 

The game is composed of rounds; each round shall have one "Linker". All
players who are not the Linker shall be known as "Confused". The game shall
be scored in Gamepoints.

Player 1 shall be the Linker of the first round, and after that, Linker
duty shall be assigned in order of increasing player number at the
completion of each round. Player 1 again assumes the duty just after the
completion of the round where the player with the highest number was
Linker. 

The referee picks a word from the official dictionary [it is encouraged to
be fairly common, but not too simple (i.e. not "the" or "at", etc.)]. The
Linker then publicly posts a word. This word, called the "uh? word", must
have a common "link word" with the original word, but must not be itself
linked to the original word [i.e. blue --> wine is allowed (via bottle), as
is school --> eye (via pupil) but school --> teacher is not (even though
pupil would be a valid link word it is not allowed since school and teacher
are themselves connected]. If e fails to do so within three days of the
start of the round then e loses three gamepoints and the round ends
immediately.

All Confused must then try to find a word to link the original word and the
announced word. Any Confused that manages it gains one game point. If no
other Confused has the same link word e gains one additional game point
(unless the game has only two players). If no-one finds a link word  then
the Linker gains N-1 gamepoints, provided e can announce a word to link the
two words e was thinking of. Any Confused who do not post any proposed link
word within three days of the Linker publicly posting the uh? word is
deemed to have failed to come up with a link word. {{[Memo to myself, do
the dumb things I gotta do. Read things like this before sending them]}}

This word announced by the Confused does not have to be the same as the one
the Linker was thinking of to gain points. If ever there is a disagreement
about whether two words are linked then the referee's decision is final.
Play then continues with the player who was assigned the next integer
publicly announcing a word which shares a common link word with the uh?
word announced by the first player. Play continues in this way until at
least one player has 5N, or 30, gamepoints, whichever is lower, and all
players have been the Linker the same number of times. At this point, if
one player has more gamepoints than anyone else, then e wins. Otherwise,
play continues, in the same way as before.

If a player is on vacation and e fails to post an uh? word then e does not
lose the points as specified above.

V. Trophy:

A standard trophy is awarded.
PETANQUE

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 13:17:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game submission

> This is a Game Submission to create a game (and I suppose a rule too)
> called Word un-asociation. The rule detailing this game will read as
> follows (delimited by PETANQUE):

I don't really understand how it works, but I always endorse G&C
submissions that don't look too threatening to the main rules, so I
endorse this.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 13:57:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

I am appealing this verdict.

Second appellate's reasoning:

The public message which the Supreme Court has most recently
decided has given Slakko a win (via its misspellings) is quoted in
part below.

> > [...] 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....

The Agenda Hat which this sentence is believed to fulfill is to post a
public message which contains at least ten misspelled words, all of which
have a prime number of letters in their properly spelled forms.  In this
reasoning, I will show that Slakko's attempt to include this text in his
public message failed.

CFJ 336, Judge's comments.

> I was at first inclined to judge FALSE, based on the argument that
> public posts were not always game actions. I do not find Rules 370 and
> 372 in conflict with that reasoning. However, the fact that Rules 374
> and 1307, and perhaps others, make the text of any public post suitable
> for invoking a game response lead me to conclude that any public post
> must be construed as a game action. As such, R 709 prohibits players in
> Gaol from making public posts. 

CFJ 336 dealt with the question of whether a player in Gaol was permitted
to make a public post.  The confusion arose due to a clause in Rule 709
which prohibited a player in Gaol from taking any game action not included
on a list of permitted actions found in that Rule.  The initiator of CFJ
336 interpreted this to mean that a Gaoled player could not make a public
post except in conjunction with performing the permitted activities for
Gaolbirds, holding that any public message was indeed a public action.
The judge upheld this interpretation, setting a game custom that any text
included in a public message constiuted a public action.  This game custom
is still valid today, since Rule 709 (Gaol) now includes sending up to
three public messages a day on a list of actions that Gaolbirds may
perform.

The implication is clear: the text of any public message constitutes an
attempted public action, even if that attempted action is nothing more
than sending a public message with that text.

Rule 373, paragraph 3.

> The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public
> actions. Any active player may attempt any public action available
> to him or her simply by sending a public message specifying the action
> to be taken. However, if any information that is necessary to
> specify the action fully and unambiguously is left out of that message,
> then the attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other reasons.] 
  
Slakko failed to fully and unambiguously specify the text of his public
message, and so the message contained no text (or at the very least did
not contain the paragraph which the Supreme Court has judged to give
Slakko the win, which matters little for returning the correct FALSE
verdict.)  In most cases, character strings such as "letturc" are fully
and unambiguously specified as either misspelled words whose proper
spelling can be determined from context, meaningless strings of
characters, or encryption (such as a Treasure Map).  Slakko's message
insists, however, that the use of "letturc" in it corresponds to either a
misspelled form of the word "lettuce" or a misspelled form of the word
"letters".  What the text actually is remains ambiguous, and so his
public message failed to contain that text, whose inclusion in a public
message would constitute a public action.

Imagine that there currently exists a Treasure map which specifies that
the Treasure shall be found by the first player in Ackanomic history to
post a public message in which the first occurrence of the string
"letturc" was a misspelled form of the word "lettuce".  Has Slakko
fulfilled the map conditions?

This illustrates the ambiguity of his public action, and the reason for
its failure.

In summary:
1) Slakko posted a public message.
2) He attempted to include text in this message.  This constitutes a
public action.
3) He was deliberately ambiguous about what the text of his public message
was.  (Not what characters in what order were in the message, but what
resulting text was.)
4) This results in his action being ambiguously specified.
5) His attempt to include this text in his message failed.

Any message whose text says of itself that it is a misspelled word and
makes it ambiguous what that word is, is ambiguous, and the action of
including that text in a public message fails.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:01:33 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

Uh, I guess you've been un-vindicated, Slakko.  Uncongratulations on
your non-Cycle win (hopefully, I'll be able to change my statement yet
again soon... :))

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Guy Fawkes [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Saturday, February 07, 1998 12:57 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)
>
>
>I am appealing this verdict.
>
>Second appellate's reasoning:
>
>The public message which the Supreme Court has most recently
>decided has given Slakko a win (via its misspellings) is quoted in
>part below.
>
>> > [...] 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....
>
>The Agenda Hat which this sentence is believed to fulfill is to post a
>public message which contains at least ten misspelled words, all of which
>have a prime number of letters in their properly spelled forms.  In this
>reasoning, I will show that Slakko's attempt to include this text in his
>public message failed.
>
>CFJ 336, Judge's comments.
>
>> I was at first inclined to judge FALSE, based on the argument that
>> public posts were not always game actions. I do not find Rules 370 and
>> 372 in conflict with that reasoning. However, the fact that Rules 374
>> and 1307, and perhaps others, make the text of any public post suitable
>> for invoking a game response lead me to conclude that any public post
>> must be construed as a game action. As such, R 709 prohibits players in
>> Gaol from making public posts. 
>
>CFJ 336 dealt with the question of whether a player in Gaol was permitted
>to make a public post.  The confusion arose due to a clause in Rule 709
>which prohibited a player in Gaol from taking any game action not included
>on a list of permitted actions found in that Rule.  The initiator of CFJ
>336 interpreted this to mean that a Gaoled player could not make a public
>post except in conjunction with performing the permitted activities for
>Gaolbirds, holding that any public message was indeed a public action.
>The judge upheld this interpretation, setting a game custom that any text
>included in a public message constiuted a public action.  This game custom
>is still valid today, since Rule 709 (Gaol) now includes sending up to
>three public messages a day on a list of actions that Gaolbirds may
>perform.
>
>The implication is clear: the text of any public message constitutes an
>attempted public action, even if that attempted action is nothing more
>than sending a public message with that text.
>
>Rule 373, paragraph 3.
>
>> The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public
>> actions. Any active player may attempt any public action available
>> to him or her simply by sending a public message specifying the action
>> to be taken. However, if any information that is necessary to
>> specify the action fully and unambiguously is left out of that message,
>> then the attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other reasons.] 
>  
>Slakko failed to fully and unambiguously specify the text of his public
>message, and so the message contained no text (or at the very least did
>not contain the paragraph which the Supreme Court has judged to give
>Slakko the win, which matters little for returning the correct FALSE
>verdict.)  In most cases, character strings such as "letturc" are fully
>and unambiguously specified as either misspelled words whose proper
>spelling can be determined from context, meaningless strings of
>characters, or encryption (such as a Treasure Map).  Slakko's message
>insists, however, that the use of "letturc" in it corresponds to either a
>misspelled form of the word "lettuce" or a misspelled form of the word
>"letters".  What the text actually is remains ambiguous, and so his
>public message failed to contain that text, whose inclusion in a public
>message would constitute a public action.
>
>Imagine that there currently exists a Treasure map which specifies that
>the Treasure shall be found by the first player in Ackanomic history to
>post a public message in which the first occurrence of the string
>"letturc" was a misspelled form of the word "lettuce".  Has Slakko
>fulfilled the map conditions?
>
>This illustrates the ambiguity of his public action, and the reason for
>its failure.
>
>In summary:
>1) Slakko posted a public message.
>2) He attempted to include text in this message.  This constitutes a
>public action.
>3) He was deliberately ambiguous about what the text of his public message
>was.  (Not what characters in what order were in the message, but what
>resulting text was.)
>4) This results in his action being ambiguously specified.
>5) His attempt to include this text in his message failed.
>
>Any message whose text says of itself that it is a misspelled word and
>makes it ambiguous what that word is, is ambiguous, and the action of
>including that text in a public message fails.
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:06:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> CFJ 336 dealt with the question of whether a player in Gaol was permitted
> to make a public post.  The confusion arose due to a clause in Rule 709
> which prohibited a player in Gaol from taking any game action not included
> on a list of permitted actions found in that Rule.  The initiator of CFJ
> 336 interpreted this to mean that a Gaoled player could not make a public
> post except in conjunction with performing the permitted activities for
> Gaolbirds, holding that any public message was indeed a public action.
> The judge upheld this interpretation, setting a game custom that any text
> included in a public message constiuted a public action.  This game custom
> is still valid today, since Rule 709 (Gaol) now includes sending up to
> three public messages a day on a list of actions that Gaolbirds may
> perform.
> 
> The implication is clear: the text of any public message constitutes an
> attempted public action, even if that attempted action is nothing more
> than sending a public message with that text.
> 
> Rule 373, paragraph 3.
> 
> > The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public
> > actions. Any active player may attempt any public action available
> > to him or her simply by sending a public message specifying the action
> > to be taken. However, if any information that is necessary to
> > specify the action fully and unambiguously is left out of that message,
> > then the attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other reasons.] 
>   
> Slakko failed to fully and unambiguously specify the text of his public
> message, and so the message contained no text (or at the very least did
> not contain the paragraph which the Supreme Court has judged to give
> Slakko the win, which matters little for returning the correct FALSE
> verdict.)  In most cases, character strings such as "letturc" are fully
> and unambiguously specified as either misspelled words whose proper
> spelling can be determined from context, meaningless strings of
> characters, or encryption (such as a Treasure Map).  Slakko's message
> insists, however, that the use of "letturc" in it corresponds to either a
> misspelled form of the word "lettuce" or a misspelled form of the word
> "letters".  What the text actually is remains ambiguous, and so his
> public message failed to contain that text, whose inclusion in a public
> message would constitute a public action.

The text is "letturc".  What the text means may be ambiguous, but that
does not affect the fact that what constitutes the text is unambiguous and
has been specified fully.  

Note that this is a question of semantics versus syntactics - it appears
to be implying that all messages must be interpreted so as to make sense.
Poor old Hoover 2300 hasn't sent a public message yet. :-)  

If Guy Fawkes' reasoning were to be accepted, then no message which was
ambiguous in any way could be sent.  In such a case, his message here was
not sent, because he quoted my message.  As a result, such an appeal,
being ruled TRUE, would invalidate the appeal ever having taken place.
Just thought you might want to know that.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:11:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:

> Uh, I guess you've been un-vindicated, Slakko.  Uncongratulations on
> your non-Cycle win (hopefully, I'll be able to change my statement yet
> again soon... :))

I have another interesting question, besides my original question as to
Guy Fawkes confusing content and intent (the content is all that matters
to the public message, and that was unambiguous, the intent is irrelevant
to the public message).

Can Guy Fawkes, having returned after the event in question (and therefore
having his player status changed as per Rule 252 or something similar),
appeal the CFJ and have its interpretation reversed (thereby having an
effect prior to his rejoining the game).  I don't know whether or not Rule
103 would apply in this case - I suspect it may not because it involves a
CFJ, but I would like to see this looked at if it appears that the
original (and first appeal) verdict is overturned.

P.S.  Can people please keep quoting down to _relevant_ parts of messages?
I've got the bandwidth to handle it but I'm sure not everybody does.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:13:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

>If Guy Fawkes' reasoning were to be accepted, then no message which was 
>ambiguous in any way could be sent.  In such a case, his message here was
>not sent, because he quoted my message.  As a result, such an appeal, 
>being ruled TRUE, would invalidate the appeal ever having taken place.  
>Just thought you might want to know that. 

I meant FALSE where I said TRUE.  Sorry - what I meant was that if the
appeal overturned the verdict, it would invalidate its own existence.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:27:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> P.S.  Can people please keep quoting down to _relevant_ parts of messages?
> I've got the bandwidth to handle it but I'm sure not everybody does.

Gee, I thought I was the only one complaining about spam and BWG
on this list.  I feel vindicated. :)

Malenkai
still has a low-bandwidth modem

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:29:54 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Yeeeeee-haw!

Regardless of whether the expressed disinterest was successful or not, I
accept this as a resignation.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Uri Bruck [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Saturday, February 07, 1998 2:48 AM
>To:	Ackanomic
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Yeeeeee-haw!
>
>
>A few days ago I posted a message in which I was expressing exlicit
>disinterest in playing Grab-A-Donkey. I wrote something like : "I am
>expressing disinterest in playing GAD"
>
>I should be removed from the list of players below.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:51:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> I am appealing [CFJ 526].

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since the Court has to
deal with it again anyway, I would appreciate it reexamining 
its construal of "attribute".

The construction chosen, IMO, is unreasonable, and contrary
to colloquial English usage.  The Court seemed to be on the mark
with "Weird", "Really Weird", and the like in the reasoning,
and then inexplicably dumped that reasoning later :-).  One does 
not think of titles, offices held, and possessions as "attributes".
Titles are titles.  Offices held are offices held.  Entities 
owned are possessions.

For example, Bill Clinton is overweight, an attorney, the
Ex-Govenor of Arkansas, the President of the United States,
and owns a set of golf clubs.

Which of these, in English, are attributes?  Clearly, these 
are not all "attributes", yet the Court chose to construe 
'attribute' as if they were, citing "extremist" construction
over a conventional, common sensical one.  We may argue over
whether being an attorney is an attribute, and we made need
judgemental guidance with that one, but stretching the
word to include everything such that what was is being construed
as an attribute was counterintuitive to an English speaker is
unreasonable.  Owning a set of golf clubs is not an attribute.
Being the Chess-Umpire is not an attribute.

Moreover, the Court failed to site an adequate precedent
in making this decision.  At the very least, as this case is
revisited, I would appreciate the Court citing what precedent,
spirit of the game, whatever, favors the extremist, unnatural
rendering over the common sense, English language one.  I was
under the impression that it was game custom to 'draw that 
judgement line' as close to the *reasonable* place as possible,
and the game could well degenerate into unplayableness if we
start taking ordinary words and stretch them as far away from
their common meanings as possible.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:01:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> > I am appealing [CFJ 526].
> 
> I wasn't going to bring this up, but since the Court has to
> deal with it again anyway, I would appreciate it reexamining 
> its construal of "attribute".

I would like to point out that Malenkai said that he would abide by the
Court's judgement on this issue.  I wonder why he has changed his mind.

> The construction chosen, IMO, is unreasonable, and contrary
> to colloquial English usage.  The Court seemed to be on the mark
> with "Weird", "Really Weird", and the like in the reasoning,
> and then inexplicably dumped that reasoning later :-).  One does 
> not think of titles, offices held, and possessions as "attributes".
> Titles are titles.  Offices held are offices held.  Entities 
> owned are possessions.

At what point does a Title stop and an Office begin?

Is Charles, Prince of Wales, holder of the Title Prince of Wales, or
holder of the Office of Prince of Wales, or is he simply "Prince of
Wales", neither a title nor an attribute?  This is the thorny problem the
Court has been tackling, and they have decided that finding an appropriate
point to draw the line here is impossible.

> 
> For example, Bill Clinton is overweight, an attorney, the
> Ex-Govenor of Arkansas, the President of the United States,
> and owns a set of golf clubs.
> 
> Which of these, in English, are attributes?  Clearly, these 
> are not all "attributes", yet the Court chose to construe 
> 'attribute' as if they were, citing "extremist" construction
> over a conventional, common sensical one.  We may argue over
> whether being an attorney is an attribute, and we made need
> judgemental guidance with that one, but stretching the
> word to include everything such that what was is being construed
> as an attribute was counterintuitive to an English speaker is
> unreasonable.  Owning a set of golf clubs is not an attribute.
> Being the Chess-Umpire is not an attribute.

I personally would say that it is an attribute of Bill Clinton that he is
the President of the United States.  I would also say that his being
overweight is an attribute, and also that he is a big fan of McDonald's
food.  Apparently my definition of attribute is different to yours.

Why is my holding an office not an attribute of being me?
> 
> Moreover, the Court failed to site an adequate precedent
> in making this decision.  At the very least, as this case is
> revisited, I would appreciate the Court citing what precedent,
> spirit of the game, whatever, favors the extremist, unnatural
> rendering over the common sense, English language one.  I was
> under the impression that it was game custom to 'draw that 
> judgement line' as close to the *reasonable* place as possible,
> and the game could well degenerate into unplayableness if we
> start taking ordinary words and stretch them as far away from
> their common meanings as possible.

The court explained that taking nothing to be an attribute would be
unreasonable.  That is fair enough.  They then tried to find an
appropriate point to say enough is enough, here the attributes stop.  The
couldn't find one.  The only reasonable point I could see would be after
all adjectival descriptions except for ownership of objects.  But then I
joined lots of Orgs - so I would satisfy the 15 requirement anyway.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #513
*******************************