Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #517
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Monday, February 9 1998       Volume 03 : Number 517

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:17:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Too many words on attributes

> 2: an object closely associated with or belonging to a specific person,
> thing, or office.

That is my second definition as well, the point is in the usage 
example they give (which I reprinted).
 
> Even if my dictionary is a bit out of date, I think that this demonstrates
> that there is a case to be made for listed entities as attributes (which,
> if I don't miss my guess, is the real sticking point here). 

The Court's argument was not based on making that case, and definition
2, based on the indicated usage, and common usage, does not make that
case either.  The Court's argument is based on "slippery slope",
whereas mine is based on common sense categorization.  The litmus
test for the litmus tests, if you will, is to see which things each
includes and excludes.  I contend that the one that groups closer
to intuition and common usage is the better one, and further
contend that if you apply mine and the Court's, side by side, mine
will group things closer to our perception of what an attribute is.
I do not say mine is perfect, but it is clearly better. (IMHO, of
course :-))

BTW, I won't appeal a third time.  I was not going to appeal a second
time either.  I realise it is pointless; perhaps I can get used to
the idea of the Chartreuse Goose being an attribute (rotfl ;-)).

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 01:48:06 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Too many words on attributes

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > 2: an object closely associated with or belonging to a specific person,
> > thing, or office.
> 
> That is my second definition as well, the point is in the usage 
> example they give (which I reprinted).
>  
> > Even if my dictionary is a bit out of date, I think that this demonstrates
> > that there is a case to be made for listed entities as attributes (which,
> > if I don't miss my guess, is the real sticking point here). 
> 
> The Court's argument was not based on making that case, and definition
> 2, based on the indicated usage, and common usage, does not make that
> case either.  The Court's argument is based on "slippery slope",
> whereas mine is based on common sense categorization.  The litmus
> test for the litmus tests, if you will, is to see which things each
> includes and excludes.  I contend that the one that groups closer
> to intuition and common usage is the better one, and further
> contend that if you apply mine and the Court's, side by side, mine
> will group things closer to our perception of what an attribute is.
> I do not say mine is perfect, but it is clearly better. (IMHO, of
> course :-))

I have to simply say that I do not agree with you as to what the "common
sense" interpretation of the word is.  In particular, you say that
being the President, or Senator, or in any other position, is not an 
attribute.  I think that it is.  Your arguement against my view, so far as
I can tell, is that it is "common sense" that holding an office is not an
attribute of a person, even though we often describe people in terms of
positions they hold or jobs that they do.  You keep arguing how the
definition you have put forward for an attribute is closest to "our"
"intuition" and "perception" of the meaning of attribute.  This isn't much
of an case for your position, and it doesn't seem to be true.  If your
ideas represent everyone's thoughts so well, this entire debate wouldn't
be happening.

I must say that I find it frustrating to have the "common sense" of your
position constantly restated.  It rather implies that the other
interpreations discussed do not make sense.  This is certainly not the
case.  They may be wrong, but they are perfectly intelligible and worthy
of the court's consideration.  I for one am not at all sure, after the
arguements put forward by Guy Fawkes, yourself, and others, that Slakko
has won the Cycle by agenda.  But please, quit trying to convince us that
it doesn't even make sense to discuss it.

> 
> Malenkai
> 

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 02:43:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel Challenge

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

> 
> I have been retained as Second by Goldenmean, founder of and Swinger
> for the Razor Boomerangs, holder of the Wooden Nickel, Wooden Wallet,
> and Goldie's Razor Boomerang.  E would like me to convey eir challenge
> to Slagothor, a.k.a. "Sluggo", you know, that fat kid that hung around
> with Nancy in the comic strip.  (As opposed to Goldie, the gargoyle
> from Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" comics, who is obviously _way_ cooler.)
> E would like me to convey to em these sentiments--"You're ugly and your
> mother dresses you funny".  (Well, e didn't say that in so many words,
> but that was eir intent.)
> 
> We await the response of your Second.

On behalf of my most esteemed colleague, Slagothor of the Razor
Boomerangs, he who is also of the "Sla" name class, highest of all such
name classes, I accept this pitiful attempt at a duel challenge.  We await
you on the field of Spades, should Tau (or is it Phi?) be able to find his
way there without reciprocating and adding 1.

Slagothor is most incensed by your incorrect attribution of his esteemed
name to a mere "fat kid" from Nancy, when e is, in fact, a worthy
inheritor of the name from the giant snail in "Cricket", who could kick a
lousy gargoyle's butt any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  E further
wished that I convey these messages to Golden"what the hell does
that"mean: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of
elderberries.  Now go away and accept this duel, or I will taunt you a
second time.

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: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:47:01 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Presidential Elections

I am now accepting votes for the Office of President.  The Nominees are
(in the order I received  their Nomination):  

The Gingham Wearer
Slakko
K 2

Reply to vote.  Voting lasts for three days.

rufus
Count Tabula

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:46:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> I am now accepting votes for the Office of President.  The Nominees are
> (in the order I received  their Nomination):  
> 
> The Gingham Wearer
> Slakko
> K 2

Right.  It is time for the campaign speeches, no doubt.

Fellow Ackazens, what do you want in a President?
You want reliability, you want objectivity, and you want accountability.
Or at least that sounds good, anyway.  I can provide this if I am elected.
I have spent long hours maintaining the state of Party Chess, even though
its moves have not always been to my advantage.  I got it up and running
again after a two month absence, and have been oiling the wheels of the PC
rules to keep it running smoothly.  This is the kind of attention to
detail you need in a President.

As Map-Harfer, I have studiously worked to restore the Map to its past
glory.  All of known mappable Acka is represented in a clear and precise
fashion.  As President, I will fulfil my duties in a clear and precise
fashion.

As RuneMaker, I have brought access to Otzma Cards to a whole new
generation of Ackazens.  I have ensured access to all, through new Otzma
Days, and will continue to do this as soon as we have another decent
streak of proposals (could be very soon).  As President, I will ensure
access to vacant Functional Offices to as many as possible, ensuring that
Acka's egalitarian nature is never again threatened by dictatorship.

Finally, as the new Foreign Minister in .Nomic, I bring glad tidings from
another land, where Nomic is played by rules that might seem recognisable.
As President, I will foster relations with friendly Nomics, and prosecute
a just war with any Nomic which disputes Acka's right to exist.

A Vote for Slakko is a Vote for Mutability!

This has been an unpaid political announcement on behalf of Slakko.
Authorised and approved by Slakko, kaa L1, Acka.
- -- 
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: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:45:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel Challenge

Slakko wrote:
>On behalf of my most esteemed colleague, Slagothor of the Razor
>Boomerangs, he who is also of the "Sla" name class, highest of all such
>name classes, I accept this pitiful attempt at a duel challenge.  We await
>you on the field of Spades, should Tau (or is it Phi?) be able to find his
>way there without reciprocating and adding 1.
>
>Slagothor is most incensed by your incorrect attribution of his esteemed
>name to a mere "fat kid" from Nancy, when e is, in fact, a worthy
>inheritor of the name from the giant snail in "Cricket", who could kick a
>lousy gargoyle's butt any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  E further
>wished that I convey these messages to Golden"what the hell does
>that"mean: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of
>elderberries.  Now go away and accept this duel, or I will taunt you a
>second time.

Whenever I am tempted to forget it, someone around here always reminds me
how entertaining it must be just to observe this game.  [Though not as
entertaining as it is to _play_ it, of course.  :-) ]

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:55:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel Challenge

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Slakko wrote:
> >On behalf of my most esteemed colleague, Slagothor of the Razor
> >Boomerangs, he who is also of the "Sla" name class, highest of all such
> >name classes, I accept this pitiful attempt at a duel challenge.  We await
> >you on the field of Spades, should Tau (or is it Phi?) be able to find his
> >way there without reciprocating and adding 1.

This reminds me - is someone else willing to referee this, because if not
then I will be forced to simultaneously referee and play it.  (Good old
precedence shunts the Duel rule 1209 over the G&C restriction, and I don't
think it would be entirely fair for me to know everyone's cards.)
> 
> Whenever I am tempted to forget it, someone around here always reminds me
> how entertaining it must be just to observe this game.  [Though not as
> entertaining as it is to _play_ it, of course.  :-) ]

Thank you.  I think I'll take that as a compliment :-).
- -- 
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: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:19:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel Challenge

Slakko wrote:
> This reminds me - is someone else willing to referee this, because if not
> then I will be forced to simultaneously referee and play it.  (Good old
> precedence shunts the Duel rule 1209 over the G&C restriction, and I don't
> think it would be entirely fair for me to know everyone's cards.)

I'll referee it.  Give me a day or two to get organized.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:34:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: INPs 360, 361 and 362

These three proposals were submitted to Malenkai, but now that that thread
is dead, they have been resubmitted to Uri.  I will assume that the
previous votes for these proposals are null and void, and ask that everyone
vote again within one week.  On behalf of InterNomic, I apologize for these
technical difficulties.

Balsamic Dragon
Ambassador

PS:  All my previous comments still stand.  Remember that votes for 361 and
362 can mean points for Ackanomic!  (and Slakko, of course :)

INP 360 was submitted by  New Rishonnomic:

  Amend the text of rule 215 to replace the string "New Rishonnomic"
with the string "New Rishonomic, New Rishonnomic".  Only perform the
replacement once, not recursively.

INP 361, 362 were both submitted by Ackanomic.

INP 361
Title: Gone Dotty

Proposal: Amend Rule 215 by replacing the text "Ackanomic," with the
text "Ackanomic, .Nomic,"

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

INP 362
Title: No Navel Gazing

Proposal: Amend Rule 212 by inserting ",and Internomic, should Internomic
not be the
member who submitted it," immediately after the text "other than the
member who submitted it".

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:41:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 534 (Red Barn)

Red Barn has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 534 - February 9, 1998
Subject: EndGame Paradox
Initiator: Vynd (sent February 6, 1998, 2:20 p.m.)
Judge: Red Barn (selected February 9, 1998, 11:45 a.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:  Further play is impossible.

Reasoning:  This *is* a Paradox Win CFJ.

As determined by CFJ 533, Slakko fulfilled the last of his Agenda
Conditions on the 29th of January.  Upon doing so, according to Rule 607,
he received the title of Agent of KAOS.  He then, again by Rule 607,
achieved a winning condition.

Rule 666 says that "Upon a Cycle winning condition being achieved, the
following steps occur, in order"...

The first of these steps is "a) Ackanomic play is suspended."

It is my belief that, upon Ackanomic play being suspended, it is no longer
possible to restart play.  Hence further play is impossible.  Why do I
believe this?  Two reasons.

The only thing that can cause play to resume is clause p) of Rule 666, "p)
Ackanomic play resumes."  Since clause a) has suspended play, however, it
is not possible to enact clause p).  To enact clause p) would be playing
the game of Ackanomic, which is impossible because play has been
suspended.

In fact, this isn't even an issue, because of the second reason I believe
further play to be impossible.  This would be clauses b) through o) of
Rule 666.  Each of these clauses calls for some sort of game action to be
taken.  So to do them would be playing the game of Ackanomic.  Clause a)
has made it impossible to do this.  So neither clause b), nor any of the
other clauses between clauses a) and p), ever happen.  Rule 666 tells us
that the steps listed in the Rule are applied in order.  So if step b)
doesn't take place, step p) can never take place, and play cannot be
resumed.  It is for this reason that, upon Slakko achieving a winning
condition, further Ackanomic play became impossible.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:44:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 520 (FALSE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 520 - January 26, 1998
Subject: Valaraukers Vote
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: Red Barn (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m., deadbeat)
Second Judge: Malenkai
Judgement: FALSE

Statement 2:

Valaraukar cast a vote on Proposal 2606.

Reasoning:

Valaraukar's Blueprint says so.  We need to know whether this works or
not, but I don't know whether to suggest a true verdict or a false
verdict.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

See the reasoning on CFJ 521.  ThinMan and I came to a verdict
on that one last Tuesday or so, basically agreeing with the 
appealer of 521.  I'm not sure its been posted yet because of
my mail problems.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:49:22 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 155 (Rex Mundi)

Rex Mundi has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 155 - February 9, 1998
Subject: Zuritiili
Initiator: Slagothor (sent February 8, 1998, 4:55 p.m.)
Judge: Rex Mundi (selected February 9, 1998, 11:50 a.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Gingham Wearer committed the Crime of Zuriti'ili on Sunday, February
8, 1998, 14:11 EST.

Reasoning:

The Gingham Wearer's (hereafter TGW) submission of  Proposal 2704, "Isn't
it just a bit contrived?", constitutes a comission of Zuriti'ili.

[ This is basically just to prove that Zuriti'ili isn't contrived or
otherwise obsolete; that the ambiguity still allows most any action to 
constitute this Crime.  Plus, as TGW mentioned, it's been all quiet on the
Zuriti'ili front, besides K 2's aborted attempt, for a while, and I
thought I'd spice things up a bit.
Not that this doesn't mean that the crime, and therefore the criminal,
is/are not horrific, and that I wouldn't like to see TGW's plaid-clad butt
behind bars. :-) ]

The Guidelines for Zuriti'ili are well established, and I will show how
TGW satisfied each condition:

1. At least once in the history of Ackanomic, a player has committed
Zuriti'ili.

We know this is true; /dev/joe was convicted of this heinous crime in CFCJ
137.

2. Zuriti'ili may be related to one or more entities that are owned.

The key word in this clause is 'may'; Zuriti'ili is not necessarily
related to ownable entities.  This instance, as will be shown in the next
Guideline, is not.

3. Any action involving a prime number of named, ownable entities is not
Zuriti'ili.

The action of submitting Proposal 2704 involved no named, ownable
entities.  Zero is not a prime number.

4. Zuriti'ili is never committed simulataneously with another crime.

If it can be shown that another player committed a Crime at the exact
moment that TGW submitted Proposal 2704, or that e committed another,
different Crime with its submission, then I will apologise to em profusely
for this slander.  However, it would be nearly  impossible to show that
the commission of the other Crime coincided exactly, to the nearest IAoT,
with TGW's commission of Zuriti'ili.  Therefore, this Guideline can be
shown to be true.

5. The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given
point in time, is a prime number.

This is the crux of TGW's argument in Proposal 2704; that because of this,
Zuriti'ili would have to be committed two or more times simultaneously
(once the total number of commissions was past three) to fulfil this
condition.  This is certainly true, but it does not show that the
Guidelines for Zuriti'ili are contrived.  As breadbox so eloquently
pointed out, nowhere in the guidelines is it claimed that Zuriti'ili must
be committed by Ackanomic players.  It could trivially be the case that
enough commissions of Zuriti'ili in Real Life coincided with TGW's
commission to raise the total number of commissions to a prime number.

Alternately, if that argument fails, it must be the case that enough
other Ackanomic players simultaneously committed Zuriti'ili to make the
total, again, a prime number.  The problem was simply that, due to the
ambiguity of the Guidelines, no one noticed and the criminals were not
convicted.  [ Note that this shows the opposite of what TGW was trying to
prove: the Guidelines are so open for interpretation that Zuriti'ili may
be committed many times simultaneously by a large number of players and
most of these commissions will go unnoticed. ]

For those who might argue that simultaneous commissions of Zuriti'ili
would violate the fourth Guideline, I would say that "another Crime" in
Guideline 4 implies a different Crime.  Zuriti'ili can be committed
simultaneously with Zuriti'ili (indeed, must be) but not with any other
Crime.

6. The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least
once.

This is, again, trivially true.  Either the Ackaphysicist has committed
the Crime and not been convicted, or e has yet to commit it.

7. No one who is not a member of an Organization can commit Zuriti'ili.

TGW is a member of Klingon.

8. Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the Speaker if e publicly announces 
the number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date
and time.

TGW is not the Speaker.

The last Guideline, which was introduced, I believe, by Fortunato, has not
yet been appended to the list of Guidelines on the Web page, but I will
prove TGW's compliance with it nonetheless.  As best I can remember:

9. Excessive anti-voting does not constitute Zuriti'ili.  However, a
specific pattern of anti-voting may constitute Zuriti'ili.

TGW has certainly anti-voted in a specific pattern, even if that pattern
is hardly at all.

I have shown that TGW complied with each and every Zuriti'ili guideline
with eir submission of Proposal 2704.  Now, I call upon the judge of
this CFCJ to be as harsh and unmerciful as possible in eir penalty to this
malicious, malevolent, and just plain _mal_ (if you'll excuse my French) 
criminal.  

Unite, Ackans, and put The Gingham Wearer, menace to society and enemy of 
all right-thinking folk, behind bars!  Why, e even stated publicly that
the Earth is not flat!
We cannot tolerate this heinous criminal any longer!  We must not -- 

Hey!  Where are you going?

Suggested Penalty:

A SENTENCE of at least 5 days in Gaol.
A PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least 15 lines, each of which contains at least 72
characters which form valid, unambiguous English or Ackanomic words.
[ Rex Mundi's legacy to Ackanomic -- the carefully conditional Apology :-)
]
The TRANSFERENCE of eir Otzma Card Scientist for a Day to the initiator of
the CFCJ to cover emotional damages.
[ Translation: Just because I can. ]

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:51:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 156 (rufus)

rufus has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 156 - February 9, 1998
Subject: Game Misconduct
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent February 8, 1998, 10:06 p.m.)
Judge: rufus (selected February 9, 1998, 11:55 a.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:

K 2 committed the Crime of Game Misconduct on January 17, 1998.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

At Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:57:59 -0500 (which is, barely, on January 17), K
2 posted a list of words containing "triva" between Alfvaen's challenge
that this string of letters did not occur in any word in the Official
Dictionary, and The Gingham Wearer's response.  This is an obvious case
of interference with the play of the subgame, since The Gingham Wearer
should not have been able to consult the Official Dictionary, however
indirectly, and yet ended up unsuspectingly reading it before e could
avoid it.

But that's really beside the point.  I think few people would disagree
that K 2 would definitely be guilty of the Crime of Game Misconduct,
except that Rule 1205, which details it, was only enacted on January
26th.  This CFCJ is testing the waters to see if an action can become
retroactively illegal or not.  If it is possible, then obviously it
should be fixed.

Suggested Penalty:

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:52:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: recent CFJ's

No, I am not just going down the list of potential judges, Irony Dice just
keeps giving me sequential numbers!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:57:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 532 (TRUE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 532 - February 3, 1998
Subject: Deadbeatedness
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent February 3, 1998, 5:33 p.m.)
Judge: Fortunato (selected February 4, 1998, 2:40 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Crackfoo was a deabeat on CFJ 512.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

CFJ 512 was distributed by me, as Acting Clerk of the Courts, at Tue, 13
Jan
1998 10:31:27 -0500.  (Well, that's the time it was received by muppetlabs,
anyway...)

As far as I can tell, from looking through the Digests, Crackfoo made
one public response:

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by eidolon.speakeasy.org (8.8.6/8.6.12)
id JAA31913 for ackanomic-outgoing.muppetlabs; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:52:41
- -0800
From:	"Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
To:	"acka" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ judge selections
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:48:12 -0600

I can't help but wonder why over the last several months I haven't been selected to judge any cfj's.  But Alvaen is CotC for 24 hours and my name is selected.  The random selection process doesn't seem to be working properly. 

Crackfoo
(and then it turns out Alvaen shouldn't have assigned the cfj anyway?)

Then, at Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:14:38 -0500, Crackfoo said:

I judged cfj512 that was distributed by alvaen.  my judgement was 'false'.
The message to alvaen apparently has been bouncing and may or may not have
reached him yet.

For Crackfoo to have judged CFJ 512, e must have accepted the CFJ.  This
was during a time of thread confusion, but in the thread which eventually
prevailed, I appointed Balsamic Dragon Clerk of the Courts at Jan 15 00:18
Ackatime.  I received no acknowledgement, nor verdict, from Crackfoo
before that time; if Balsamic Dragon received one of the above before
Crackfoo's one-week deadline expired at 20 Jan 1998 10:31:27 -0500, then
the only problem is that this verdict has not yet been officially
distributed.
Otherwise, Crackfoo is a deadbeat and the Praetor(Malenkai)should go on to
judge it.

So this should be easy to judge if Balsamic Dragon knows whether or not
e received a private acceptance from Crackfoo.  I'm willing to bet e did
not, since e was still trying to send me a verdict days later.

I suppose it's also possible the above fully-quoted message could be
considered an acceptance, but I think that's too much of a stretch; it's
a comment, nothing more.

Judges Reasoning:  My reasoning stems from Alfvaen's arguments, along with
Balsamic Dragon's reply.  Since neither of them received a private
message of acceptance (and since I do not consider either of Crackfoo's
message to the public forum as acceptance), Crackfoo did not accept,
could not judge as e said e did, and was therefore deadbeat at some
point on Jan. 20th.  Therefore, this CFJ should go to Malenkai as
Praetor to be judged.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:03:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 512 (Malenkai)

Well, here it is, the infamous CFJ 512.  I don't want to even _think_ about
the potential mess this could make...

Clerk of The Court
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 512
  Subject: Malenkai's playerhood
Initiator: Bill the pirate king
Submitted: 98-01-13 05:10
    Judge: Crackfoo (deadbeat)
    Judge: Malenkai
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai was unable to leave the game.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Rule one states that "Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 
28, 1997 [/dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, andVynd] are Evil Overlords of 
Ackanomic (retired)"
This I take as meaning they are always the only members of the Evil
Overlords
Of Ackanomic (retired)(hereafter EOA).
The rule also states "No other players and no non-players are EvilOverlords
of 
Ackanomic (retired). "
So malenkai must be a member of EOA, but as a non player cannot be a 
member of EOA.

So either malenkai was unable to leave, or the customary interpretation of
rule one must change.  As rule one states "The game state may not be
altered in 
such a way as to cause the customary interpretation of this rule to be 
changed." The customary interpretation may not be changed and so malenkai
was unable to leave the game.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:37:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

> A Vote for Slakko is a Vote for Mutability!

So, I'm curious...would you have to resign as Senator to take the
Office, or would being elected President automatically result in your
resignation as Senator?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The William Tell Overture
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
Not being clever, Floyd had trouble with Claire's harness

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:42:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > A Vote for Slakko is a Vote for Mutability!
> 
> So, I'm curious...would you have to resign as Senator to take the
> Office, or would being elected President automatically result in your
> resignation as Senator?

I assume I would automatically be vacated from my Senatorial office if I
was elected.  Any other opinions?

- -- 
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: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:50:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: SBoC

>Sorry, mea culpa; due to a typo in the entitylog, you were still listed
>as having your Spell Book on the PE page, but in fact you had transferred
>it to RexBank last I saw.
>
Yes, that was what I meant. ;-)
After I sent that message, I thought "Oh no! I forgot to transfer the SBoC
back to myself!", but when I checked the PE page, I seemed to still have it.

Do I need to try again?

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:50:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (Rex Mundi)

>Rex Mundi has been selected.
>
At last! It's been months since I was selected.
I accept this CFCJ.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:54:55 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Actions

I believe that it has been three days since Rex Mundi approved the
creation of the SBoC, so it has been created.  If I'm wrong, someone
please correct me... I love being wrong, it fills me with joy :)

I suggest that the Moral Kiosk transfer its Spell Book of Chorg to me.

I approve of this suggestion.

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:06:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

>I suggest that the Moral Kiosk transfer its Spell Book of Chorg to me.
>
>I approve of this suggestion.

As do I.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:06:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (Rex Mundi)

>>Rex Mundi has been selected.
>>
>At last! It's been months since I was selected.
>I accept this CFCJ.
>
Not, of course that I need to. I knew that.
No, really.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:09:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2704

> Proposal 2704
> Isn't it just a bit contrived?
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

I retract this proposal. I notice that the inverted commas in it will
probably mean it won't have the effect I intended.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:09:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (Rex Mundi)

<CFCJ snipped> (I will however mention that I think it's dubious that
Zuriti'ili may not be committed simultaneously with any other crime, but
considering that several instances of Zuriti'ili can be committed
simultaneously. Indeed, how can any two things happen EXACTLY
simultaneously).

> Unite, Ackans, and put The Gingham Wearer, menace to society and enemy of

> all right-thinking folk, behind bars!  Why, e even stated publicly that
> the Earth is not flat!

Why of course the Earth isn't flat. The Earth is banna. The Earth isn't
round. The Earth is banna! The Earth is not hemispherical. The Earth is
banna! THE EARTH IS BANNA! THE EARTH IS BANNA! THE EARTH IS BANNA! THE
EARTH IS BANNA!

> We cannot tolerate this heinous criminal any longer!  We must not -- 
> 
> Hey!  Where are you going?
> 
> Suggested Penalty:
> 
> A SENTENCE of at least 5 days in Gaol.
> A PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least 15 lines, each of which contains at least 72
> characters which form valid, unambiguous English or Ackanomic words.
> [ Rex Mundi's legacy to Ackanomic -- the carefully conditional Apology
:-)
> ]
> The TRANSFERENCE of eir Otzma Card Scientist for a Day to the initiator
of
> the CFCJ to cover emotional damages.
> [ Translation: Just because I can. ]

This sentence would be invalid. Trinkets, gadgets and A$ can be transferred
to another player. Apologies can only be specified in terms of lines. The
sentence probably needs to be specified more exactly too.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:17:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > A Vote for Slakko is a Vote for Mutability!
> > 
> > So, I'm curious...would you have to resign as Senator to take the
> > Office, or would being elected President automatically result in your
> > resignation as Senator?
> 
> I assume I would automatically be vacated from my Senatorial office if I
> was elected.  Any other opinions?

What happened to Malenkai when he became Speaker but was already a member
of the Supreme Court?

GF

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:23:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > > A Vote for Slakko is a Vote for Mutability!
> > > 
> > > So, I'm curious...would you have to resign as Senator to take the
> > > Office, or would being elected President automatically result in your
> > > resignation as Senator?
> > 
> > I assume I would automatically be vacated from my Senatorial office if I
> > was elected.  Any other opinions?
> 
> What happened to Malenkai when he became Speaker but was already a member
> of the Supreme Court?

If I remember correctly, he simply was violating the rules until he
resigned from one office.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:28:54 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SBoC

I am reading the first page of my Spell Book of Chorg.  It disappears in
a bright flash of a sort of greeny-purplish-blue light.  With
greeny-purplish-blue lights flashing in my eyes, I await the results.

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:36:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 534 (Red Barn)

> Statement:  Further play is impossible.

[shudder]

> Reasoning:  This *is* a Paradox Win CFJ.
> Rule 666 says that "Upon a Cycle winning condition being achieved, the
> following steps occur, in order"...
> 
> The first of these steps is "a) Ackanomic play is suspended."
> 
> It is my belief that, upon Ackanomic play being suspended, it is no longer
> possible to restart play.  Hence further play is impossible.  Why do I
> believe this?  Two reasons.
> 
> The only thing that can cause play to resume is clause p) of Rule 666, "p)
> Ackanomic play resumes."  Since clause a) has suspended play, however, it
> is not possible to enact clause p).  To enact clause p) would be playing
> the game of Ackanomic, which is impossible because play has been
> suspended.

I believe that the meaning of "Ackanomic play is suspended" was established
by game custom long ago to not prohibit the subsequent steps in R666 from
being executed -- to be precise, this was determined shortly after P666
passed, creating the original version of R666.  Issues related to this were
handled in several CFJ's in the month or two after P666 passed, including
three in a row, CFJ's 187, 188, and 189, one of which is a false verdict
on a statement of "Ackanomic play cannot continue" with a different reasoning
related to the "Ackanomic play is suspended" issue, but one which still
would have had to be judged true if this CFJ's initiator's viewpoint was
accepted.

Also, to consider the "thread split" theory of time travel that has
developed here recently, the thread where this CFJ is TRUE ceased play
over a year and a half ago, when "Ackanomic play is suspended" in R666
was first executed, and obviously this CFJ must have been submitted in
the other thread, where play continues.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:55:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Did P2681 do anything?

My initial response would be "no."  One of the provisions of the last
paragraph of Rule 1 was that no existing Rule could be altered in such a
manner that if it conflicted with Rule 1, it would guide play instead of
Rule 1.

Rule 2000 was clearly altered when it became Rule 0.  (The renumbering of
a Rule is certainly alteration), and after this alteration, it certainly
guided play, so the only question is this:

Did Rule 2000 conflict with Rule 1?

Rule 2000 stated that the last paragraph of Rule 1 had no effect.  Rule 1,
on the other hand, stated that the game state could not be altered in such
a manner that would deny Rule 1 of its customary interpretation.  My
initial reaction would be that Rule 2000's denial of all semantic meaning
regardless of lexical meaning in the last paragraph of Rule 1 would indeed
be an alteration of its customary interpretation, resulting in Rule 1's
self-preservation mechanisms defeating P2681.

GF

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:09:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Did P2681 do anything?

> My initial response would be "no."  One of the provisions of the last
> paragraph of Rule 1 was that no existing Rule could be altered in such a
> manner that if it conflicted with Rule 1, it would guide play instead of
> Rule 1.
> 
> Rule 2000 was clearly altered when it became Rule 0.  (The renumbering of
> a Rule is certainly alteration), and after this alteration, it certainly
> guided play, so the only question is this:

The obvious rejoinder is: look at Rule 303 again. The last sentence of
the first paragraph was put there specifically for the benefit of Rule
2000/0. Whether or not this actually accomplished what Slakko wished
it to, I leave for others to debate.

breadbox

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #517
*******************************