Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #514
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, February 7 1998      Volume 03 : Number 514

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:12:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
 
> I am appealing this verdict.

Hmm, interesting. I also note that Slakko won't just be able to repeat the
message now e is out of gaol to achieve a win because e now has the goose
after the verdict on CFJ 530 came back FALSE.

The Gingham Wearer, about to go back and check e didn't try anything when e
was in gaol.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:35:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> 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.

Huh?  I have not changed my mind.  Also, how does one "abide by the 
judgement"?  Right or wrong, the 2 Justices decide how the rest of 
us interpret the rules, and there is scant little I can do about 
it anyway.  I said I wanted the Court's stamp of approval on the
*win*.  I was extremely dissapointed in the Court's treatment of 
the issue of contruction of *attribute*, however, and since final
Judgement does not take effect until 4 days after verdict (as far 
as I'm concerned), I myself was considering a re-appeal, just to
see which judicial precedent hat the Court was pulling that  
reasoning out of :-).

I chose not to re-appeal, however, since past experience indicated 
that doing so would be pointless.  However, when GF appealed, it 
was an opportunity to add these comments. 

So, to answer your comments, I did not ever say I would "abide by the
Court's judgement", as you claim, and did not change my mind.  (BTW,
I do not care if you win because of this or not; I believe the adjenda
hat thing is a wee bit broken, and that winning by it really is not
that big of a deal anyway.  If you feel having a list of 15 things on
someone's unregulated web page is reason enough to win a game of
nomic, fine by me :-).  (Unlike how others flamed me for that Cheez-Whiz
win ;-)).  I do, however, care about 2 people having the authoritive,
uncheckable power to decide how the rest of us construe words, especially
when those constructions, IMO, are unreasonable and unsupported by
judicial precedent).

Besides, why are you so insecure about people challenging this?  Don't
I have the right to try again when I feel the Court dropped the ball
on the judgement (the issue being contruing words, not you winning)?
Wouldn't you feel better if there was no doubt about your win; that 
it was earned completely on the up-and-up, that it was affirmed by 
all of acka?  It appears you wish to win by 'arguing to convince 
judge du jour to misconstrue 'attribute'' :-)  So that there is no
misunderstanding in the future, I will abide by this if and when
the Court demonstrates the principles and precedents leading to 
that non-standard, non-intuitive, construal.  Otherwise, in my mind,
you won by 'argument'.  There have been cheaper wins; my own CFJ 269
is an example.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:42:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> 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.

Just for the record I'd like to point out that I agree with Malenkai on
this one. I actually made a brief mention of it in my reasoning of CFJ 523.
To some extent I can understand the supreme court's reasoning but what if
you look at things the other way round? For example:

Is organisational membership an attribute? No, not really. And what
qualities do offices have which org membership doesn't that make them
attributes? Well, none really so they aren't attributes either. And if you
can't accept offices then why accept titles? And if titles aren't
attributes then why make adjectival descriptions attributes?

I would argue that this is the more intuitive interpretation. Attributes is
an ambiguous term here. We don't know what constitutes an attribute. We do,
though, all have some idea as to what is *not* an attribute. Since this is
what we have a better idea of, this is what we should work from.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:44:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

In response to Slakko's comments about content / intent.

Content and intent became an issue the moment the relevant message stated
the author's intended spelling (lettuce / letters) of the character string
"letturc".  There is ample precedence that message intent constitutes a
game action -- examine Rule 340.

CFJ 336 ruled that message content (any message content) constituted a
game action, based on evidence that any message content could be grounds
for response from various rules -- in that case, the Rules regarding the
Politeness Moon and the Witchhunt, among others.

It is the natural extrapolation of this principle that if message _intent_
also triggers rule-activated phenomena, then message intent constiutes a
game action.  We see that Rule 340 relies on message intent to determine
the ambiguity or lack thereof of a given misspelled word, generally
judging this from context.

It does not necessarily follow that all message text must make complete
sense.  For example, the "speaking in tongues" of the lost-long anti-flood
prayers can reasonably be interpreted as entertaining strings of
syllables, and as;dlkgf can reasonably be intended as assorted letters.
The problem arose when your message specifically stated that "letturc"
was a misspelling of exactly one of two words, giving no ideas which.
This made impossible to interpret "letturc" as having minimal semantic
content.  What if we outlawed all mention of vegetables, and made it an ex
post facto law?  How would we know whether to prosecute you?  It is
impossible to know exactly what you posted, and therefore you did not post
it. 

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 16:14:46 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Oars

The Gingham Wearer has found the Great Oars of Ackanomic.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Elvis Costello & The Attractions:All This Useless Beauty
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
Linda Lovelace and Jim Henson in: I'VE GOT A FROG IN MY THROAT.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 16:33:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Phoebe

rufus failed to post what Phoebe said.  (Unless I missed it...)  She
has been found by Balsamic Dragon.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Elvis Costello & The Attractions:All This Useless Beauty
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
"They're directly beneath us, Moriarty.  Release the piano!"

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:28:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> Huh?  I have not changed my mind.  Also, how does one "abide by the 
> judgement"?  Right or wrong, the 2 Justices decide how the rest of 
> us interpret the rules, and there is scant little I can do about 
> it anyway.  I said I wanted the Court's stamp of approval on the
> *win*.  I was extremely dissapointed in the Court's treatment of 
> the issue of contruction of *attribute*, however, and since final
> Judgement does not take effect until 4 days after verdict (as far 
> as I'm concerned), I myself was considering a re-appeal, just to
> see which judicial precedent hat the Court was pulling that  
> reasoning out of :-).

First of all, I will just quote what Malenkai gave in his reasoning on the
initial appeal of CFJ 526:

: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.

Malenkai said he would "accept the Court's stamp of approval or
disapproval in any case."  It appears from my POV that making additional
arguments, as he has, against the interpretation of "attributes on the
Player/Entity page", constitutes an unwillingness to accept the Court's
definition, and hence its stamp of approval or disapproval on the win.
That's my opinion.  Yours may of course differ, dear reader.

> So, to answer your comments, I did not ever say I would "abide by the
> Court's judgement", as you claim, and did not change my mind.  (BTW,
> I do not care if you win because of this or not; I believe the adjenda
> hat thing is a wee bit broken, and that winning by it really is not
> that big of a deal anyway.  If you feel having a list of 15 things on
> someone's unregulated web page is reason enough to win a game of
> nomic, fine by me :-).  (Unlike how others flamed me for that Cheez-Whiz
> win ;-)).  I do, however, care about 2 people having the authoritive,
> uncheckable power to decide how the rest of us construe words, especially
> when those constructions, IMO, are unreasonable and unsupported by
> judicial precedent).

Authoritative? Yes.  Uncheckable? Hardly.  If sufficiently many people are
disappointed with the way that the Justices perform, then someone will no
doubt impeach the Justices responsible, and then new CFJs will be issued
(or old ones appealed where possible) to overturn the original
interpretation.  After all, that's what impeachment is all about.

> Besides, why are you so insecure about people challenging this?  Don't
> I have the right to try again when I feel the Court dropped the ball
> on the judgement (the issue being contruing words, not you winning)?
> Wouldn't you feel better if there was no doubt about your win; that 
> it was earned completely on the up-and-up, that it was affirmed by 
> all of acka?  It appears you wish to win by 'arguing to convince 
> judge du jour to misconstrue 'attribute'' :-)  So that there is no
> misunderstanding in the future, I will abide by this if and when
> the Court demonstrates the principles and precedents leading to 
> that non-standard, non-intuitive, construal.  Otherwise, in my mind,
> you won by 'argument'.  There have been cheaper wins; my own CFJ 269
> is an example.

I am quite happy to have other people appeal.  I may have been a mite
chagrined when Guy Fawkes came up with his argument that my message was
not actually a message at all, but that doesn't mean that I oppose his
right to appeal.  It does mean, however, that I feel I have a right to
counter-argue the points Guy has made to the public forum.  If the
Justices feel that my arguments (or other arguments that they come up with
themselves, of course) outweigh those put forward by Guy (and other ones
the SC Justices find), then they will uphold the original verdict again.
If not, well then I'm out a win, and bad luck to me.  C'est la Nomique.

However, what I am not as pleased with is when players appear to be going
back on their word.  I interpreted the reasoning that you gave with your
appeal to include an announcement that you would accept the reasoning of
the judges.  If that was an incorrect interpretation, then I apologise for
not determining your meaning correctly.  If it was a correct
interpretation, however, then as far as I can see your additional
reasoning attempts have been in violation of your original claim.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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 17:30:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> Malenkai said he would "accept the Court's stamp of approval or
> disapproval in any case."  It appears from my POV that making additional
> arguments, as he has, against the interpretation of "attributes on the
> Player/Entity page", constitutes an unwillingness to accept the Court's
> definition, and hence its stamp of approval or disapproval on the win.
> That's my opinion.  Yours may of course differ, dear reader.

Malenkai added his extra arguments only after someone else appealed:
ie, only after it landed back in the Court's lap anyway. I hardly
think that this is "going back on his word". You're all making a
mountain out of a molehill.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:39:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Malenkai added his extra arguments only after someone else appealed:
> ie, only after it landed back in the Court's lap anyway. I hardly
> think that this is "going back on his word". You're all making a
> mountain out of a molehill.

You're right.  All that is really irrelevant to the main issues:

(1) Are Guy Fawkes' claims about _public actions_ sufficient to affect the
Court's judgement (IMHO they shouldn't be because the CFJ was related to
game actions, and current game custom viz. private submission of CFJs
indicates that game actions /= public actions)

(2) Are the Court going to change their definition of attribute?

That's all that is really going to matter.
Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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 17:41:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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.  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.

I put A$5 into the pool(by sending it to Slakko)...why not, this is
else...if's A$5 anyway.  :-)  Do we specify our choice publicly or
privately?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Matt Bianco:More Than I Can Bear
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
The container, for the thing contained; the effect, for the cause.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:41:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Bronze Torch

> Thank you Alfvaen!  I pick up my Bronze Torch, almost immediately a
> powerful beam of red light shoots out of it, 5 feet in length.  I wave it
> around and it makes a loud humming noise.

> When I left I was but the student, now I am the master!  You, all of you,
> will soon join me.  It is your... destiny...

You're not my father!  You're not my father!

Unfortunately, I don't have an "I Opposed P2241", so no loud, dramatic
music is heard.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Bjork:Human Behaviour
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
What if no one's watching?

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:43:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> In response to Slakko's comments about content / intent.
> 
> Content and intent became an issue the moment the relevant message stated
> the author's intended spelling (lettuce / letters) of the character string
> "letturc".  There is ample precedence that message intent constitutes a
> game action -- examine Rule 340.
> 
> CFJ 336 ruled that message content (any message content) constituted a
> game action, based on evidence that any message content could be grounds
> for response from various rules -- in that case, the Rules regarding the
> Politeness Moon and the Witchhunt, among others.

This is where my second argument kicks in.  This argument states that game
actions and public actions are not synonyms.  If you look at Rule 709, it
describes CFJ submissions as game actions.  But CFJ submissions are made
privately, and are hence (can I use ipso facto here?) not public actions.
The rules never specify that messages are "public actions", as "public
actions" is a term that the Rules take, courtesy of Rule 373, to refer to
things not necessarily synonymous with its English standard meaning.  CFJ
336 says nothing about whether public messages are public actions, and so
I would submit that public messages are not public actions, even though
they may be public (as no rule says they are and there is no game custom
in the area of public actions that I can see relating to public messages.)

> 
> It is the natural extrapolation of this principle that if message _intent_
> also triggers rule-activated phenomena, then message intent constiutes a
> game action.  We see that Rule 340 relies on message intent to determine
> the ambiguity or lack thereof of a given misspelled word, generally
> judging this from context.

Does this mean it is impossible to be deliberately ambiguous?

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
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 17:45:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Yeeeeee-haw!

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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.

I don't believe I'd have to decline now. It's always been acceptable to
decline when the intent to start the GAD was anounced. But just in case,
I'm anouncing again that I do not wish to play Grab-A-Donkey.

One of those messages should stick.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 17:47:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 9

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I put A$5 into the pool(by sending it to Slakko)...why not, this is
> else...if's A$5 anyway.  :-)  Do we specify our choice publicly or
> privately?

Privately will do for now - I'll reveal all the pool choices when the pool
closes.

- -- 
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 17:53:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Moreover, the Court failed to site an adequate precedent
> in making this decision.  At the very least, as this case is

Not specifically to the case at hand, I don't think this should be a
requirement. Sometimes there just is no precedent, and in that case it is
up to the Court to create that precedent. This is true in the Acka
judicial system where verdicts become part of implicit game custom. I
believe that this case is just such a case.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 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 17:54:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 9

> > I put A$5 into the pool(by sending it to Slakko)...why not, this is
> > else...if's A$5 anyway.  :-)  Do we specify our choice publicly or
> > privately?
> 
> Privately will do for now - I'll reveal all the pool choices when the
pool
> closes.

I give A$5 to Slakko for the same purpose.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 18:05:14 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

Well, I guess I'll throw by two bits in on the attribute issue.

It seems pretty clear that there is nothing in the Rules to unambiguously
tell us what an attribute is.  So we have to go with the common English
usage of the word.  Unfortunately, the common English usage doesn't help
us much in deciding what an attribute on the Player's/Entities page is,
either.

It seems safe to assume that attributes are something that actually exist
on the Players/Entity page, otherwise the hat has no meaning at all.
With this in mind, and considering that there is no way to determine what
exactly constitues an attribute, I agree with the Court's decision that it
is more appropriate to be inclusive in our reading of the word than
exclusive.  Malenkai has said that it does not seem right to consider
things like titles, offices, memberships, and owned entities to all be
attributes.  He has not given any arguement that I have seen, however, as
to which of the above are attributes and which are not.  Thus we return to
exactly what the Supreme Court decided to do.  Faced with good indications
that there are such things as attributes on the Player/Entity page, and
with no real way to determine which things on the page are attributes and
which are not, there is no justification to go with a narrow definition of
the word rather than a broad one.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:03:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> Malenkai has said that it does not seem right to consider
> things like titles, offices, memberships, and owned entities to all be
> attributes.  He has not given any arguement that I have seen, however, as
> to which of the above are attributes and which are not.

That was supposed to be evident to the reader :)  Actually, I  will say
now that under common English usage of the word, possessions, titles,
offices, and memberships are definitely NOT attributes.  Fatness,
attractiveness, weirdness, number of heads, etc., ARE attributes. 

Golf clubs are not an attribute Bill Clinton has.
President of the United States is not an attribute Bill Clinton has.
Ex-Govenor of Arkansas is not an attribute that Bill Clinton has.
Being a member of the organization of current heads of state is not
  an attribute Bill Clinton has.

Being overweight is an attribute of Bill Clinton.
Being male is an attribute of Bill Clinton.

My Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus lists the following synonyms for
the noun 'attribute': affection, character, characteristic,
feature, mark, property, savor, trait, virtue.

I'm not sure how golf clubs, memberships in SPAM, and Chess-Umpireship
are any of these. 

Granted, the definition of the word in the English language is difficult
to nail down.  Its like the "bachelor" problem from PSY 101.  We cannot
define "bachelor" precisely, but we all know who is and is not a
bachelor.  Likewise, we all know that possessions, etc., are not attributes.

Thus, a rendering of attribute that considers each alleged attribute
on a case-by-case basis is favorable to one that simply throws our arms
in the air and says 'we don't know what an attribute is, let's just 
include everything' :-)  The former, IMO, is more in keeping with the
way people interpret the English language, and I personally do not feel
enough legal evidence has been presented by anyone to favor the latter
in this case, since it is contrary to customary English, which should
hold sway in the absence of specific, citable custom.  

I do not want to go into detail describing the bachelor problem, but
if I say: 'room X contains 10 unmarried men', and Acka law says 'well,
then room X contains 10 bachelors', I think Acka law has a problem.  
If there is specific precedence for applying this general principle, 
I apologize for not seeing it, but at least now the Court has the 
chance to include it in its reasoning, if appropriate.

I hope this satisfies all those who claim I have not presented an
argument, or claim that membership in an organization is an
attribute.  Quite frankly, I have not seen anyone explain how 
these things *are* attributes, and as The Gingham Wearer points
out, we definitely know what is NOT an attribute, and should start 
from there.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:17:52 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> It seems safe to assume that attributes are something that actually exist
> on the Players/Entity page, otherwise the hat has no meaning at all.

I disagree with this bit. Just because a hat has no meaning doesn't mean
there's anything wrong with it. As Malenkai has pointed out, wins are meant
to be difficult. An agenda hat that requires a changing of the rules is a
perfectly reasonable hat.

All of the following Agenda condition (and possibly some others; just think
how innocent the attributes one and the spellings one sounded before all
this) would have required a change in the rules of some sort (one of them a
change in the rules of internomic, one only because synod was repealed, and
one actually did have the rule changed (white-water-rafting)):

13)The game of InterNomic of which Ackanomic is a member (the one of
those of which it is currently a member which it was first, in the
unlikely event of an ambiguous specification) acknowledges as voting
members of itself at least forty-two Nomics which both contain the word
"Froggy", not necessarily capitalized, in their rulesets, and which
acknowledge the owner of this hat as members of themselves.

14)The owner of this hat has a negative, nonintegral, or non-numerical
quantity of points, A$, or any other entity or entities.

19)It is the case that the Synod has a seat in the Synod,
that the Synod is a member of MetaMorph, and that
MetaMorph has a seat in the Synod.

21)The owner of this hat also has the Chartreuse Goose.

24)The owner of this hat has danced naked on the town hall steps during
this cycle.

29)The owner of this hat has successfully white-water rafted down the
Ackanomian River.

That is one fifth of all the conditions. Why then is it reasonable to
assume the hat has a meaning? While it may be true that it does, the mere
existence of the hat does not make this the case.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:17:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

> However, what I am not as pleased with is when players appear to be going
> back on their word.  I interpreted the reasoning that you gave with your
> appeal to include an announcement that you would accept the reasoning of
> the judges.  If that was an incorrect interpretation, then I apologise for
> not determining your meaning correctly. 

My comments (ironically quoted by Slakko):

: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.

*sigh*

Apology accepted.  I never said I would accept the Court's reasoning,
and I do not, as you can plainly see.  Note that the word
"reasoning" does not even appear.  But more accurately...

To me, acceptance and agreement are two different things.  By not
appealing, I have accepted what I feel is an incorrect verdict.
I never said I would agree with the verdict or the reasoning, and
CERTAINLY never said that I would remain silent on the matter for
all time.  You really construe my comments to mean that I will
not ever comment on the matter, if the opportunity presents itself?
Finally, I only commented after my comments would have no effect
anyway, when the Court had another go at it independent of me.  This
is utterly unbelievable!  My acceptance means I challenge your win
no further.

I accept the verdict, but do not agree with it, nor do I agree with
the reasoning.  I also reserve my right to comment on all matters,
even those I accept.  Is that clear?  

Besides, why does it matter to you what I do, or what comments I
make?  The important thing is to get it right, not force a
bogus win through, right?  I trust that the Court will reconsider
the 'attribute' issue after checking a thesaurus, and may even 
overturn themselves.  If they do not, I trust that they will at
least address the issue and provide more appropriate reasoning.

I most likely will be satisfied, and your win will be more satisfiying,
I suppose, because it has gone through all of this rigor.  Of course,
there is the possibility that the Court and I will never agree on
the rendering of 'attribute'.  In that case, I would accept, but
not necessarily agree, with the Court.  I may even comment on the
matter again, once I see the Court's comments, or if it is appealed
a third time.  Is this all clear to you?  

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 22:37:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Wizard

I offer the Wizard office to /dev/joe.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 22:40:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bronze Torch

>> Thank you Alfvaen!  I pick up my Bronze Torch, almost immediately a
>> powerful beam of red light shoots out of it, 5 feet in length.  I wave it
>> around and it makes a loud humming noise.
>
>> When I left I was but the student, now I am the master!  You, all of you,
>> will soon join me.  It is your... destiny...
>
>You're not my father!  You're not my father!
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have an "I Opposed P2241", so no loud, dramatic
>music is heard.
>
>
>--
#transfer RexBank, Rex Mundi: 40A$: covering my debts.

I suggest that RexBank give I Opposed P2241 #1 to me.

I wave I Opposed P2241 #1 around, and shout "You're not my father!" at Vynd.
Loud, dramatic music is heard. ;-)

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 23:17:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Wizard

ThinMan wrote:
> I offer the Wizard office to /dev/joe.

I accept.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 23:38:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Wizard

> ThinMan wrote:
> > I offer the Wizard office to /dev/joe.

> I accept.

So, by Rule 594, does this mean that the Circle of Protection thing
is Debunked, since it's a Useless Blueprint?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Cure:Disintegration
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
Do not meddle in the affairs of C programmers, for they will cast you to void.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #514
*******************************