Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #515
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Sunday, February 8 1998       Volume 03 : Number 515

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:42:34 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Game Submission

This post consists of two parts.  The first part is a General Equipment
submission:

Add the following new General Equipment to the Games & Contests suite:

FOOTLOOSE
V. Movie Database

a) URL: http://www.imdb.com/
FOOTLOOSE

(Please, if you are following up this post to endorse the above, do not
quote the RFC below unless you are commenting on it as well.)

The second part is an RFC for a new game, titled "Bacon", delimited
by FLATLINER:

FLATLINER
[ Bacon is a game inspired by the book "Seven Steps To Kevin Bacon",
  illustrating the ubiquity of the actor Kevin Bacon. Consider it an
  exercise in graph theory. ]

General Equipment: Movie Database, Gamepoints as needed

Number of Participants: 2; Referees: 1

Rules:

The game consists of a series of rounds.  At the start of each round, each
player must name an actor or actress(hereafter referred to as an actron),
who has appeared in at least one movie as specified in the Movie Database.
This naming period is over when both players have named an actron,
or three days have passed since the referee announced the start of the
round, whichever comes first; in the latter case, if one player named
an actron and the other did not, then the first player wins the round,
and if neither named an actron then the round is a draw.

After the actrons have been named for a round, each player must attempt
to construct a "Bacon chain" between the two of them.  A Bacon chain
consists of a series of links; each link must consist of the name of a
movie and the names of two actrons who were in the movie.  For a chain
to be valid, adjacent links must have at least one actron in common.
[Thus, the link "Terminator: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton"
followed by the link "Twins: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Danny De Vito"
would be a valid chain; the first link above followed by the link
"Wayne's World: Dana Carvey, Tia Carrere" would not.]  (If there is
ambiguity between two movies or actrons with identical names, it is
up to the referee to determine which is meant in each case, and to
make this information available to both players when the actron or
movie is posted.)

{{[ It occurred to me just as I was finishing this that they do reuse
movie titles("Blind Date", for instance--one includes Kirstie Alley and
Marina Sirtis, and another Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger), and some
common names can be used by more than one actron.  The idea is that
any time a player makes an ambiguous submission, the referee must
make them clarify it.  The Internet Movie Database uses dates to
distinguish movies and roman numerals, arbitrarily assigned, to
distinguish actrons, but that won't necessarily work here. ]}}

Each player has three days from the time the naming period ends to send
such a chain to the referee.  After this period ends or Bacon chains
are received from each player, the referee shall post both chains.

If one player thinks that the other player's chain is invalid, then e may
challenge it up to three days after the chains are posted.  The referee
will check each link in the Movie Database, and determine whether the
chain is valid.  Otherwise, a chain will be assumed to valid if it goes
unchallenged for the three days.  (If a player did not submit a Bacon
chain for that round, then eir chain is considered invalid.)

{{[ I wasn't sure what validation process to go through.  I decided to
leave it up to the players.  I mean, if it were left up to the referee,
would e check the chains when submitted?  Could e tell the player that
eir chain was invalid, the same way I can tell a player that eir Viruses
move was illegal?  If anyone would prefer to see this another way,
speak now before I submit it officially.  ]}}

If one player's chain is valid and the other's is invalid, then the
first player wins the round.  If both chains are valid and one
player's chain is shorter than the other(contains fewer links), then
e wins the round.  If neither chain is valid, or both chains are
valid and of equal length, then the round is a draw, and neither player
wins.

The winner of a round receives a Gamepoint.

Winning:  The winner of the game shall be the first player to obtain 5
Gamepoints.  The winner shall receive a standard Trophy.  The referee
shall receive A$8 from the Treasury upon conclusion of the game.  If one
player leaves the game, then the remaining player will win the game
immediately by forfeit.

Cheating:  Players may not consult the Movie Database themselves during
the course of a round.
FLATLINER

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Timbuk 3:Cheap Black & White
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
What if there were no hypothetical situations?

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:45:54 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CSRs

I believe that CSR 127 and 128 received no objections, and so were
enacted.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Aztec Camera:How Men Are
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
Why does it take the tears of a woman to see how men are?

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 03:38:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> 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. 

Let's look at characteristic, first:

(Courtesy of WWWebster Dictionary at Merriam-Webster)

1 : a distinguishing trait, quality, or property
2 : the integral part of a common logarithm
3 : the smallest positive integer n which for an operation in a ring or
field yields 0 when any element is used n times with the operation 

I am quite willing to believe that 2 and 3 are inappropriate meanings at
this point, leaving 1 as the relevant meaning synonymous with attribute.

Interestingly, the dictionary then goes on to define 
trait as a distinguishing quality or characteristic
quality as a "peculiar and essential character" or a distinguishing
attribute, or (archaic) an acquired skill
property as a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an
individual or thing

This seems to be an awful lot of circular reference.  What do any of these
actually mean? :-)

I think the reason Acka will never get a general method for pinning down
how to take English meanings and get coherence out of them is that English
doesn't have a method for that yet.

Interestingly, the dictionary entry for quality includes the following
snippet:

synonyms QUALITY, PROPERTY, CHARACTER, ATTRIBUTE mean an intelligible
feature by which a thing may be identified.

Is a reference to "President of the United States" sufficient to identify
Bill Clinton?  Is a reference to "Chess-Umpire of Ackanomic" sufficient to
identify me?  Is a reference to "that guy who owns What a Nice Diamond"
sufficient to identify me?

Technically all 3 are as far as I can see.

Yours,
Slakko
warping your mind.
- -- 
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: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 04:10:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game Submission

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> FOOTLOOSE
> V. Movie Database
> 
> a) URL: http://www.imdb.com/
> FOOTLOOSE

I endorse this games submission.

> 
> 
> (Please, if you are following up this post to endorse the above, do not
> quote the RFC below unless you are commenting on it as well.)
> 
> 
> The second part is an RFC for a new game, titled "Bacon", delimited
> by FLATLINER:
> 
> FLATLINER
> [ Bacon is a game inspired by the book "Seven Steps To Kevin Bacon",
>   illustrating the ubiquity of the actor Kevin Bacon. Consider it an
>   exercise in graph theory. ]

I thought it was "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", as started on Mad About
You.  Actually, it is designed to illustrate the interconnectedness of all
actrons, not just KB.  The Australian version is One Degree of Bill
Hunter.  Now he's ubiquitous.

> 
> General Equipment: Movie Database, Gamepoints as needed
> 
> After the actrons have been named for a round, each player must attempt
> to construct a "Bacon chain" between the two of them.  A Bacon chain
> consists of a series of links; each link must consist of the name of a
> movie and the names of two actrons who were in the movie.  For a chain
> to be valid, adjacent links must have at least one actron in common.
> [Thus, the link "Terminator: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton"
> followed by the link "Twins: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Danny De Vito"
> would be a valid chain; the first link above followed by the link
> "Wayne's World: Dana Carvey, Tia Carrere" would not.]  (If there is
> ambiguity between two movies or actrons with identical names, it is
> up to the referee to determine which is meant in each case, and to
> make this information available to both players when the actron or
> movie is posted.)

Given most people's movie knowledge here, I wonder if naming the arc is
really necessary - just name the two people.  After all, the IMDB has a
feature for checking if two people have ever both had credits in one film,
so the referee does not need a film title to perform a check on a valid
link.

> 
> Winning:  The winner of the game shall be the first player to obtain 5
> Gamepoints.  The winner shall receive a standard Trophy.  The referee
> shall receive A$8 from the Treasury upon conclusion of the game.  If one
> player leaves the game, then the remaining player will win the game
> immediately by forfeit.

Oh - here's an interesting one I just tried out using the IMDB to minimise
my length.  You'd think it would take ages:
Buster Keaton to Diane Keaton.

Length I found using the IMDB: 4.

Buster Keaton, Frankie Avalon: Beach Blanket Bingo (!!)
Frankie Avalon, Robert de Niro: Casino
Robert de Niro, Al Pacino: Heat
Al Pacino, Diane Keaton: The Godfather Part III

If this is possible, just imagine the combinations around!

- -- 
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: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 05:44:55 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game submission

I endorse this

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 05:49:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game submission

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, K 2 wrote:

> I endorse this

Is this Alfvaen's Game Submission,
Alfvaen's Equipment Submission,
or The Gingham Wearer's Game Submission?

Oh, BTW, I endorse TGW's Game Submission.
- -- 
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: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 05:52:15 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game Submission

> 
> 
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> This post consists of two parts.  The first part is a General Equipment
> submission:

I endorse both parts. (but isn't it 6 steps of KB?)

rufus

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:40:39 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (TRUE (upheld)) (fwd)

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Let's look at characteristic, first:
> 
> (Courtesy of WWWebster Dictionary at Merriam-Webster)
> 
> 1 : a distinguishing trait, quality, or property
> 2 : the integral part of a common logarithm
> 3 : the smallest positive integer n which for an operation in a ring or
> field yields 0 when any element is used n times with the operation 
> 
> I am quite willing to believe that 2 and 3 are inappropriate meanings at
> this point, leaving 1 as the relevant meaning synonymous with attribute.
> 
> Interestingly, the dictionary then goes on to define 
> trait as a distinguishing quality or characteristic
> quality as a "peculiar and essential character" or a distinguishing
> attribute, or (archaic) an acquired skill
> property as a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an
> individual or thing
> 
> This seems to be an awful lot of circular reference.  What do any of these
> actually mean? :-)
> 
> I think the reason Acka will never get a general method for pinning down
> how to take English meanings and get coherence out of them is that English
> doesn't have a method for that yet.
> 
> Interestingly, the dictionary entry for quality includes the following
> snippet:
> 
> synonyms QUALITY, PROPERTY, CHARACTER, ATTRIBUTE mean an intelligible
> feature by which a thing may be identified.
> 
> Is a reference to "President of the United States" sufficient to identify
> Bill Clinton?  Is a reference to "Chess-Umpire of Ackanomic" sufficient to
> identify me?  Is a reference to "that guy who owns What a Nice Diamond"
> sufficient to identify me?
> 
> Technically all 3 are as far as I can see.

Slakko has done a much better job of arguing the ideas that I was trying
to express earlier.  The Rules do not tell us what attributes are.  Common
English usage does not clearly define them either.  It does give us some
idea what the word means, and it would seem to indicate that at least some
of the things listed on the Players/Entity page are attributes.  The
sticky issue is in determining which ones.  Malenkai argues that being
overweight is an attribute of a person, but holding the office of the
presidency, being President, is not.  I disagree, I think it is perfectly
reasonable to consider holding that office to be an attribute one can
posses.  I don't really think that possession of some object or another
qualifies as an attribute, but Slakko thinks that it is.  I can't really
mount an arguement against him, since attribute is loosely defined enough
to cover ownership of things, if you're willing to read it that way.  Is 
being a millionaire an attribute?  At most, I can say that it seems like
owning things is less attribute-like than holding an office, which in turn
seems less attribute-like than being overweight.  But none of us can
actually show where the cut-off should be. It is for this reason, in my
opinion, that the Supreme Court did the right thing to take the most
inclusive of possible readings rather than some interpretation of the word
which, without any possible justification that I can see, leaves out some
of the possibile attributes.  This is, in fact, the manner in which
ambiguous words or phrases are commonly interpreted in English.

As a side note, while the Bill Clinton example is perhaps interesting, I
think it can be misleading here.  Bill Clinton is a person.  The
Player/Entity page lists Players.  There are substantial differences, I
think, between "the world" and Acka.  Just because something is not, or
rather might not be, an attribute for Bill Clinton, does not necessarily
mean it isn't an attribute for a citizen of Acka.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]                      

> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> warping your mind.
> -- 
> 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: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:47:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game Submission

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > 
> > FOOTLOOSE
> > V. Movie Database
> > 
> > a) URL: http://www.imdb.com/
> > FOOTLOOSE
> 
> I endorse this games submission.

Aww heck.  I endorse this submission, and any other submissions which it
is legal for me to endorse at this time.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > (Please, if you are following up this post to endorse the above, do not
> > quote the RFC below unless you are commenting on it as well.)
> > 
> > 
> > The second part is an RFC for a new game, titled "Bacon", delimited
> > by FLATLINER:
> > 
> > FLATLINER
> > [ Bacon is a game inspired by the book "Seven Steps To Kevin Bacon",
> >   illustrating the ubiquity of the actor Kevin Bacon. Consider it an
> >   exercise in graph theory. ]
> 
> I thought it was "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", as started on Mad About
> You.  Actually, it is designed to illustrate the interconnectedness of all
> actrons, not just KB.  The Australian version is One Degree of Bill
> Hunter.  Now he's ubiquitous.
> 

It's definitely Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.  I first played the game many
years ago, at least 5 or 6.  I was never under the impression that it was
started by Mad About You.  I assume it was at least inspired by "Six
Degrees of Seperation", which puts forward the idea that not just every
actor, but every person on earth, is only six acquaintance links away from
knowing everyone else.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:59:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game Submission

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> > I thought it was "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", as started on Mad About
> > You.  Actually, it is designed to illustrate the interconnectedness of all
> > actrons, not just KB.  The Australian version is One Degree of Bill
> > Hunter.  Now he's ubiquitous.
> 
> It's definitely Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.  I first played the game many
> years ago, at least 5 or 6.  I was never under the impression that it was
> started by Mad About You.  I assume it was at least inspired by "Six
> Degrees of Seperation", which puts forward the idea that not just every
> actor, but every person on earth, is only six acquaintance links away from
> knowing everyone else.

I know that the Kevin Bacon bit was at least popularised by Mad About You.
It had probably been circulating in Hollywood, at least, before that time.
The six degrees urban legend has been circulating for some time.  It all
depends, of course, on what you consider to be an acquaintance.

For example, even I believe I can claim 5 degrees to Bill Clinton.  (Not
that too many people want to do that this week as far as I can see).
There's only one stretchy link - I was invited out to lunch by a
particular MP back home (who was Deputy Premier at the time), and that's
my first link.

In mathematical circles, of course, the idea has been around for at least
20 years in some form or another, the most common being Erd"os number (the
theory is that every mathematician who has been published in the 20th
century, and probably most physicists as well, have single digit Erd"os
numbers).  The advantage of Erd"os number is that it is clearly defined -
the only legitimate link is coauthoring a paper.

This is why I'm glad television links weren't suggested as part of the
game.  It would have led to the age old question: Does a guest appearance
count?  And if not, when does an occasional character become a recurring
character?

On a related note, in Australia some wags have released a book called "Six
Degrees of Danny Dickfos", in which every player in the AFL, plus the
coaches (and possibly the managers - I haven't read the book) is linked to
Brisbane Bears player Danny Dickfos through at most five intermediate
footballers (i.e. a path of length 6).

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: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 12:11:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game Submission

>I know that the Kevin Bacon bit was at least popularised by Mad About You.
>It had probably been circulating in Hollywood, at least, before that time.
>The six degrees urban legend has been circulating for some time.  It all
>depends, of course, on what you consider to be an acquaintance.
>
>For example, even I believe I can claim 5 degrees to Bill Clinton.  (Not
>that too many people want to do that this week as far as I can see).
>There's only one stretchy link - I was invited out to lunch by a
>particular MP back home (who was Deputy Premier at the time), and that's
>my first link.
	I read about a study where one scientist in Chicago (I think) gave
a letter to a cross-section of people there, with instructions to transmit
the letter to a certain person in Boston (again, I think).  That defined an
acquantence as someone who you could get to spend the time to pass the
letter on.  As I recall no chain was longer than ten, and one was only two
people besides the starting and recieving ends.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 12:27:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: lamb

If it is permissible for me to do so I take possession of the little lamb
(I believe that whoever currently has it has had it for at least one week),
paying the required A$10. I also purchase a wool sweater for A$10.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 12:45:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game Submission

> FOOTLOOSE
> V. Movie Database
> 
> a) URL: http://www.imdb.com/
> FOOTLOOSE

> The second part is an RFC for a new game, titled "Bacon", delimited

  NOOOO!!!!
  :-)

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/ and find out about text adventures!
Help fight continental drift. -- ?

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 16:42:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game submission

On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Oh, BTW, I endorse TGW's Game Submission.

I endorse both TGW's Game Submission and Alfvaen's Equipment Submission.

Anyone else notice the common theme between the respective Game
Submissions (or RFCs) -- forming a "link"?  And that that theme is, in
itself, a "link"?  Neat, huh?  Hello?  Aw, never mind.

- -rico

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. 

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 19:45:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: SBoC

I read the next page of my Spell Book of Chorg. It disappears with a
disappointing puff of grey smoke, and a flash of dim, brownish light.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 19:45:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Rebellion

I hereby leave the Rebellion.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 20:02:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: trinkets

I suggest that RexBank give me the Asbestos Underpants, Polly Parrot, Rex's
Parka #1, Rex's Parka #2, and the any parka.

I then pluck out all of Polly Parrot's feathers, and find that, when I am
done, the Parrot is destroyed, and I am left with 5 A$. I then destroy the
Asbestos Underpants, Rex's Parka #1, Rex's Parka #2, and the any parka.

By my count this leaves me with 13 A$, which I give to RexBank, along with I
opposed p2241 #1.
I suggest that RexBank give me the Laundry Clean Disk(tm). I then go to the
museum, and donate the Laundry Clean Disk(tm), before returning to the
Temple of Azpiazu.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 20:06:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Too many words on attributes

I'm going to respond in the public forum regarding the whole
"attribute" issue. Since it wasn't part of the official appeal, I'm
hoping to put this subject to rest here, mainly because it's one of
those things that just takes forever to dispense with fully (as you
can see by the size of this email), and I for one am getting sick of
my own logorrhea increasingly becoming a matter of official record (if
not *the* matter). If you read this message and feel that I've missed
your point, you need only say the word, and I will make sure that the
Court's reasoning contains something addressing this, though hopefully
much shorter. I want to stress, by the way, that the following
represents my opinions only, as a single Justice. ThinMan's opinions
may only match mine inasmuch as was necessary to agree on CFJ 526's
first appeal verdict.

If this game has taught me anything (besides the dangers of CTS), it
has taught me that one person's nonsense is another's dictionary.
Malenkai, and I think someone else, argued that "just the adjectival
appellations" was much more aligned with common sense than what the
Court chose. I would prefer to say that it is common sense to *them*.
Not that I'm singling anyone out: As was hinted in the reasoning, I
personally found that the most appealing choice myself. However, I
don't get to pick decisions based on my personal likes or dislikes. I
was not able to muster a satisfying argument to defend my own whims,
and simultaneously I was able to imagine arguments against it that
were, in my objective opinion, just as defensible. It is a slippery
slope, and there are many places where one could draw the line.

I sat down and tried to pinpoint exactly why I had a preference for
the "just the adjectival appellations" line (or the "said-to-be"
designations, as I've come to call them). My best guess was that it
stemmed from a connotation of permanence that the word "attribute"
carried. That is, we often think of attributes as things that are not
so easily shed, or are more closely a part of our basic nature.
Malenkai's argument that being overweight might be an attribute, while
being a President is definitely not, seems to follow this idea. The
Presidency is a title that is bestowed upon us by the outside world.
It does not necessarily imply anything about who or what we are, and
furthermore it is by definition temporary. Being overweight, however,
is a function of our own body - thus it is more closely tied to our
being. It is also something that we have limited control over; if we
do manage to become underweight at some point, our friends are likely
to comment, "You look so different!" or "My, how you've changed!"

(All this talk about physical attributes hearkens back to the aside
made in CFJ 523, where it was pointed out that having a mutation gave
players, according to the rules, "special attributes". And,
admittedly, I think most of us would agree that if someone we knew
actually had a second head, or pointy ears, it would not be too
strange to refer to their unusual feature as an attribute, at least in
polite company. Of course, in Ackanomic, mutations are hardly anything
more than non-tradeable gadgets, like The Machine that goes *ping*.
This just leads us into the trap of trying to imbue facets of the
rules with more real-life semantics than they actually have. We've
already seen a Church with pointy ears and a Political Party with an
extra head, so hopefully I don't need to say anything more on that.)

But the connotation of attribute that I'm trying to home in on usually
has more to do with someone's (or something's) nature. A personal
attribute, as opposed to a physical attribute, seems to directly
answer to a person's essence. I think this is why the "said-to-be"
designations feel like attributes. They are mostly reminescent of
traits - "silly", "foolish", "Enlightened" - and most of them have the
added benefit of being much more easily received than removed. Of
course, this is Nomic, and things change, sometimes unexpectedly. A
player can now shed their Enlightenment, of all things. But I digress.

So, if you find the above a convincing argument, and you stand by the
line you have drawn, which separates "said-to-be" designations from
everything else, then let's take a look at how straight that line is.
Ideally, if one is going to decide that some things are attributes and
other things are not, one should also provide some kind of litmus
test, one that can be applied relatively objectively. So let's take a
look at the "said-to-be" designations line: Where exactly do you draw
it? After all, the rules say that players are "said to be" a lot of
things. Besides silly and Enlightened - the two oldest and probably
most canonical examples - players are "said to be 'permitted' to build
(or extend) an Ostentatious Tower", or they are "said to be wearing"
garments, or not wearing them. There are more examples. On the other
hand, not all of these attributes are prefixed with "said to be". For
example, players are not said to be "Weird", or "Really Weird"; they
are "deemed" Weird. But they can also be "deemed to have lost
[Phoebe's] matchbox", and some players can be "deemed a quack". One
could argue that silly and Weird are adjectives, while "wearing" a
garment or "having lost" a matchbox are participle phrases. But, then
again, Enlightened is also a participle. Okay: players can "be
considered 'on vacation'", but they also can "be considered to be the
Belt Holder". But Belt Holder is explicitly defined to be a title. How
about being "in Contempt"? Does it matter if the player is "placed" or
"held"? And then there's "Guilty of Patent Infringement": The rules
say that a player out-and-out "shall be Guilty of Patent
Infringement", but then they are "said to be Guilty of Patent
Infringement until an Appeal For Pardon is GRANTed them by the
President." This rule doesn't seem to make a distinction between
"being" something and being "said to be" something. Of course, the
rules say that players "are" a whole lot of things. Eventually we're
going to be looking at all possible game-state variables that can
apply to individual players, which is only going to take us back to
square one.

Perhaps one can say that the bestowal of an attribute is characterized
by having no other direct game effect, other than being given that
attribute. That would rule out wearing garments, being deemed a quack,
vacationing, and a lot of my other examples that seems to fall in a
gray area. In fact, that would leave only silly, foolish, Weird, and
Really Weird. Enlightenment is defenestrated again, because the
attribute directly bestows a privilege (immunity from Witchhunts). Of
course, silliness and foolishness also bestow a privilege, too (a
one-time unilateral ability to change a rule), but the rules are
worded such that it is the points that come with the attribute that
make that privilege accessible. Okay, all well and good, except for
one little thing: why the hell should attributes have to be
ineffectual and useless? There isn't anything in the English
definition that implies that. Quite the opposite, in fact. In our
search for an objective litmus test, we've wandered away from the
ability to defend it as being objectively implied by the original
words. We might as well define an attribute as only those things that
are described in capitalized words. Sure, it's completely arbitrary,
but you can't beat it for objectivity!

So that straight line was perhaps a little more crooked than we
thought. If it isn't clear which side of it some things are on, how do
you know that anyone is going to draw it in the same place as you?
Because if they don't, then any but-my-definition-is-common-sense
arguments start to look a little fragile.

There is something I consider to be an even more central point. The
connotations I mentioned above, concerning "physical attributes" and
"personal attributes", are about people. Human beings, to be
precise. Living, breathing homo sapiens sapiens. A person is not a
player, nor is a human being an Acka-entity. And when you stop
thinking about "personal attributes" and start thinking about "player
attributes", a noticeably different aura of connotations are
invoked. For example. The first thing that springs to my mind when I
think of what might be a "player attribute" is: your score. Surely,
surely your score is a player attribute, if anything is. (If that
doesn't seem a "natural" conclusion to you, then I've probably wasted
your time with this whole message, because we will probably not agree
on anything regarding this issue.) Everyone has a score, you can't
*not* have a score, so it is moreover, a necessary part of being a
player. Hm, but the same can be said of your A$ total. And also the
number of Cycles you've won. And also - oops, I feel that slippery
slope beginning to tilt under me again.

If I were a programmer charged with creating data structures to
encapsulate the current game state ("if" - hah), I would probably have
a really big one defined for players. It would, ideally, collect every
piece of information on any game state variable that directly relates
to individual players. The score would be one of the first things in
that data structure, as well as A$ balance, the player's state as
defined by Rule 254 - everything, really. And I doubt any programmer
would bat an eyelash if I gave this data structure the name
"player-attributes". Here, the term "attributes" is quite widely used
to refer to any piece of data in a collection which must be
tracked. Is that so far off from the normal English usage?

(By the way, this structure would also contain all of their tradeable
unique entities, but these would probably be stored in a list under a
single entry: all those possessions would be just one attribute.
Great: now we not only disagree on what's an attribute, but we might
also disagree on how to count them.)

Drawing upon my own dictionary, I come up with the following as a
definition: "something regarded as belonging; a quality, character,
characteristic, or property". The word "attribution" also has
"attribute" as one of its definitions in my dictionary (the other
being "the act of attributing, an ascription"). Now, I could be wrong,
but I'm almost positive that no one would have made a peep if the
Agenda Hat had called for fifteen or more *attributions* on the
Player/Entity page. Surely no one would argue that the Web-Harfer had
not made fifteen attributions to Slakko.  After all, there they are,
for all to see: it is incontestible that these fifteen items were in
fact attributed to Slakko, by the Web-Harfer, on the P/E page. And
yet, go on to call them attributes and there's a problem, apparently.
Do these two words really have such clearly differentiated meanings,
objectively speaking, that an "attribution" on the P/E page clearly
does not an "attribute" on the P/E page make?

I hope that by now I've made it clear why I call this situation a
slippery slope. In such a case, I usually find the extremes to be the
only places that allow anything remotely resembling an objective
stand. Very similar observations were made in CFJ 415. When that was
first appealed, I was almost sure that we would be upholding the
original verdict, because I felt the parallels between "any Military
Lasers" and "all RoJ fragments" was too great to be ignored. It was
only after much discussion with mr cwm that I realized just how
rationalized my objective stance was, and it took a lot of internal
debate to see what the crucial difference was between the two (damn
little, actually), and to convince myself that nowhere but the extreme
position of "nothing but lexical equivalence" was going to be
defensible. I find this to be a very similar situation, though for
different reasons.

If you completely disagree, I ask that you provide an argument that is
grounded in something more than "we all know what that means" (because
I believe you're fooling yourself if you think so), and that you
provide some kind of criteria that is both based on the various usages
of the word and that most any player can use to separate wheat from
chaff to get pretty much the same results as you.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 22:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CFJ Acceptances

So do people who were selected as a Judge before P2673 passed, but
have not yet accepted, still have to accept publicly, or does the
automatic acceptance thing take effect in between?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Hunters & Collectors:Talking To A Stranger
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
When the boss is not around we know a lot of songs.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 22:21:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CoTC Pages

For now, I'll make things easier for Balsamic Dragon by maintaining the
CoTC's pages myself.  The CFJ-by-Player page(which has been up there for
a little while now)I don't mind doing, I decided I might as well put up
the Zuriti'ili guidelines, and it makes things easier for other people
to have a Clerk of the Courts page.  I don't guarantee the total accuracy
of these things yet, so let me know if there's something I'm missing
(like an appeal or something).

But as long as Balsamic Dragon keeps me up to date on things(and we
don't have to worry about private acceptances anymore), I should be
able to maintain them well enough.  And maybe I can put up the
Ineligibility List, although since that's usually done as a plain text
file, maybe BD can do it eirself...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Enya:Shepherd Moons
Current Book--Amanda Quick:Ravished
Does "rueful" mean "full of streets"?

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

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 22:23:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: SBoC Random OC determination

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# Player: Rex Mundi
# I am using the dice server to determine the random otzma card
# delivered from the spell book of chorg based on the following
# schedule:
# 1 - go fish
# 2 - map shard
# 3 - untouch me
# 4 - share my expenses
# 5 - share my income
# 6 - swinging sale
# 7 - tactical retreat
# 8 - paratroop
# 9 - foul fowl
# 10 - truthseeker
# 11 - fix my gadget
# 12 - scientist for a day
# 13 - art thief
# 14 - skeleton key
# 15 - grave robber
# 16 - summon tornado

No. of sides on every die:     16
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

     16

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Sun Feb  8 19:22:47 1998
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id TAA15604 for <[email-masked]>; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:22:47 -0800
> Received: from edtntnt2-port-63.agt.net(209.115.133.63) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma015599; Sun Feb  8 19:22:39 1998
> Received: (from alfvaen@localhost) by telusplanet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA06993 for [email-masked]; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:23:32 -0700
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Chorg
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:23:31 -0700 (MST)
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
> Content-Type: text
> 
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 16
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: SBoC Random OC determination
> 
> #C Player: Rex Mundi
> #C I am using the dice server to determine the random otzma card
> #C delivered from the spell book of chorg based on the following
> #C schedule:
> #C 1 - go fish
> #C 2 - map shard
> #C 3 - untouch me
> #C 4 - share my expenses
> #C 5 - share my income
> #C 6 - swinging sale
> #C 7 - tactical retreat
> #C 8 - paratroop
> #C 9 - foul fowl
> #C 10 - truthseeker
> #C 11 - fix my gadget
> #C 12 - scientist for a day
> #C 13 - art thief
> #C 14 - skeleton key
> #C 15 - grave robber
> #C 16 - summon tornado
> 

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

iQCVAwUBNN52mD8NitsTFjcVAQEsAgQAt5Vk+UW6BpLlJTxKoNWfS3AwbhQ0/xRL
zfwLGLCibCESz05MgL9o1GknqOJKB3MjW8vsgZD50JdsRQAiwL7yj9VDh1/xoQqJ
uZF9aSydUjTiVgD/aqBdt7WF5bgKk0YSh9pjVS0oW+DLGnKJGiCkEg4K5Wjbzbrd
K619E4PmYvU=
=Bzr1
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #515
*******************************