Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #518
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Monday, February 9 1998       Volume 03 : Number 518

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:17:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Did P2681 do anything?

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 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:

Guy - check the definitions - renumbering a rule is not altering it as the
rule numbers and the rules are defined as separate entities.

- -- 
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 14:19:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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.)

Oh, absolutely.  There are game actions that are not public.  However, all
public messages constitute game actions (CFJ 336).  Furthermore, the Rules
say (Rule 373) that if the Rules do not specify _how_ to take a game
action, then it shall be taken as a public action.

The Rules specify what a public message is, but they do not inform us how
to make one.  Thus, the text of one's public message is a public action.

(As a matter of what seems to _me_ as common sense in the absense of
explicit definition, a public action is that category of game actions
attempted in the public fora).

GF

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:23:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

>> 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?

Do the rules actually prohibit a player from being President and a
Senator simultaneously? I'm not sure if they do.

If they do, then Slakko was not an eligible nominee to begin with, and
Count Tabula's including him as a candidate was in error.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:29:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Oh, absolutely.  There are game actions that are not public.  However, all
> public messages constitute game actions (CFJ 336).  Furthermore, the Rules
> say (Rule 373) that if the Rules do not specify _how_ to take a game
> action, then it shall be taken as a public action.
> 
> The Rules specify what a public message is, but they do not inform us how
> to make one.  Thus, the text of one's public message is a public action.

So the text is a public action.  Would that be the text or the meaning of
the text?  What if something is made deliberately meaningless?

> 
> (As a matter of what seems to _me_ as common sense in the absense of
> explicit definition, a public action is that category of game actions
> attempted in the public fora).

Ah, but Rule 373 does give an explicit "definition", by saying that rules
are allowed to define things to be public actions, and that game actions
which can be taken are public actions unless otherwise specified.

Oh, one more point:  Rule 373 says that:

Any active player may attempt any public action available to him or her
simply by sending a public message specifying the action to be taken. 

But a public message is a public action.
So to send the public message you need to send a public message specifying
it.  But that is a public message, so you need to send a public message
specifying it.

We have a problem of infinite regress here - if you accept that public
messages are public actions then they cannot actually be performed because
they have to be specified in a public message, which has to be specified
in a public message, etc. etc.

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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:38:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Do the rules actually prohibit a player from being President and a
> Senator simultaneously? I'm not sure if they do.
> 
> If they do, then Slakko was not an eligible nominee to begin with, and
> Count Tabula's including him as a candidate was in error.

Actually, looking at the offices, it appears the only restriction is that
the Speaker may not be a Senator.  It says nothing about being President
and Senator simultaneously.

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 14:42:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Actually, looking at the offices, it appears the only restriction is that
> the Speaker may not be a Senator.  It says nothing about being President
> and Senator simultaneously.

I pledge to resign as Senator if I should be elected President.
Of course this pledge is not _legally_ binding, but I consider it morally
binding on me personally.

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 14:44:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Did P2681 do anything?

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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:
> 
> Guy - check the definitions - renumbering a rule is not altering it as the
> rule numbers and the rules are defined as separate entities.

Yes, but by changing Rule 2000's number (even though it was a separate
entity), Rule 2000 was altered from a state where its conflict with Rule 1
was resolved in favor of Rule 1 to one where it would be resolved in favor
of Rule 0.  And Rule 1 _did_ state "changed _in any way_").

At the risk of using physical analogy...

If you murder my parents, you performed an action on an entity other than
myself, but you changed _me_ by adding "orphan" to my characteristics.

If you steal my bicycle, you have amended entities other than myself, but
in doing so you altered me by removing my power to get to my probability
theory class in under 15 minutes.

If you infest my shower with biological cultures, you have preformed no
action on me, yet when I break out in athlete's foot, you will have
difficulty arguing that you altered me in no means whatsoever.

In changing Rule 2000's number, Rule 2000 was changed from a state in
which it did not claim precedence over Rule 1 to one where it did.  Rule 1
did not permit changes of any variety to a Rule that would cause it to
guide play instead of Rule 1 in case of conflict.  Therefore, that change
should have failed.

My argument is that by altering the associations among entities, one
changes the qualities of those entities, and as a result, the entites are
not left unchanged.  Rule changes are no longer explicitly defined -- the
class of changes that constituted changing a Rule was broadened and
broadened until the explicit definition was removed from the Rules
altogether -- in this state, I find it fallacious to say that a Rule is
not changed unless its text is altered.

GF

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:48:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: <blank>

STREAK TIME!

Get the Monkey out of its cage, it's a-bellowing soon (but not just yet,
the Streak's still in progress).

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 14:52:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Any active player may attempt any public action available to him or her
> simply by sending a public message specifying the action to be taken. 
> 
> But a public message is a public action.
> So to send the public message you need to send a public message specifying
> it.  But that is a public message, so you need to send a public message
> specifying it.

A public message specifies itself.  Unlike physics, there is no
prohibition against simultaneity in Ackanomic.  Nor is there any
prohibition against self-causality, if it is done non-retroactively.

I think we have reached the point where you have made your definitions,
and I have made mine.  You have defined what methods of manipulation you
are willing to apply to your definitions, as I have mine.  At this point,
it is meaningless for us to apply our own manipulations to each others'
logic, because only contradictions will ensue.  I realized very rapidly in
my stint as Justice that the game customs of this game have grown into
such a luxurious fabric of potential contradiction, that you can argue
nearly any CFJ from at least three of the verdicts' sides, and stand a
fair case of being correct by some body of custom or rules' eyes.  Let us
retire and let the Court decide this one.

GF

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:53:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: vacation

I have to go to Prague like now.

I decline all CFJs assigned to me.
I send all assigned to me as preator to the Supreme Court,
except the one I returned to the CotC friday nite.
I forfeit all duels against me.

I go on vacation, expected duration 9 days.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:58:56 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential campaign speech

I'm sure you're all currently in a quandary as to who to vote in as
president. I say there is but one choice you can make. Vote for The Gingham
Wearer and make Acka a place of honour. Firstly, let us look at my
opponents, starting with Slakko:

"As RuneMaker, I hereby declare an Otzma Day, to begin in 3 days time.
I do know that LSAP >= 12, but I do not know what LSAP equals.  Does
anyone know it offhand?"

E was elected to the office of RuneMaker, and yet knew not what the
position entailed. Do we really want someone so ill-prepared as president
of Acka?

"I hate to tell you this, but the second pawn can't move to Q6.  It can
only move one square, because it is not adjacent to any of your other
pieces. (it needs to be defending a friendly piece to move two).

Sorry about not telling you earlier - I didn't harf the moves because I
knew it wouldn't have counted."

In eir position as chess umpire e failed in a duty to inform the players of
the legality of their moves. Is this who we want as president? Someone
incapable of performing even these, the simplest of tasks?

Let's not forget eir blatant disregard for being hosed. Or eir inability to
so much as remember the name of the subgame e was playing. Do we want such
a person as president?

And what of K 2?

"contrivance
contrivances
outrival
outrivaled
outrivaling
outrivalled
outrivalling
outrivals
trivalent
trivalve
trivalves

> I may regret this, but...  I protest that "triva" is not found
> within a word in the Official Dictionary.  (And hopefully I won't
> feel as foolish as Vynd did with "bbots"...)

The entity page already says you are silly,  now you can feel foolish as
well.... ;)"

I wonder who felt more foolish after this? Do we want a player with no
courtesy towards eir fellow players as presidents? Of course we don't.

"I am using my Otzma Card Share Your Income on Hoover 2300 , and naming
the
amount of A$450, half the A$900 he received when he became a new
member..."

More blatant disregard for the feelings of other players.

"Did you (towsner) get Valaraukar or did else...if?"

In fact, e can't even recognise some of eir fellow players.

"Ackanomia's birthday is on January 22nd"

This sort of thing should not be accepted from any player, let alone a
prospective president!

Finally, I create a number of trinkets equal to the number of current
players minus one called "Campaign leaflet #n" where n is replaced by
successive positive integers starting at 1 and each valued at A$2 and each
with the following description:

"It is a small leaflet designed to be posted through doors with a picture
of The Gingham Wearer on one side and the slogan 'A vote for TGW is a vote
for honour' on the other side"

I then give one of these to all current players, such that the trinket with
the lowest number in place of n which I currently own is given to the
player whose Ackanomic name is earliest in alphabetical order who does not
currently own one of these trinkets.

And remember, a vote for TGW is a vote for honour.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:18:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

\\
> So the text is a public action.  Would that be the text or the meaning of
> the text?  What if something is made deliberately meaningless?
> 
\\ rest of discussion snipped for bandwidth

If I have been hosed by a BWG Laser, then any post that I make to a public
forum not in the form of an accepted rhyme, even if it is competely
meaningless, still has a game effect.  
To me, that seems to indicate that public posting of a message is a game
action.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:33:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential Elections: Question for candidates

Question for the candidates.

I'd like to know which of the candidates are members of other nomics, and in
case of conflict, where their loyalty would lie?

Of course, I have an inherent problem with someone being in a position where
they might not be able to fulfill to their full capacity all the
responsibilities of the offices they hold, if some of them come to have
mutually exclusive goals.

This is not meant to be a loyalty test, but an ethics test. If candidates
who are members of other nomics can state unequivocally that it will not be
a problem, I will take them at their word. I just want all this to be clear
and stated for the record.

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:43:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections: Question for candidates

> Question for the candidates.
> 
> I'd like to know which of the candidates are members of other nomics, and
in
> case of conflict, where their loyalty would lie?
> 
> Of course, I have an inherent problem with someone being in a position
where
> they might not be able to fulfill to their full capacity all the
> responsibilities of the offices they hold, if some of them come to have
> mutually exclusive goals.
> 
> This is not meant to be a loyalty test, but an ethics test. If candidates
> who are members of other nomics can state unequivocally that it will not
be
> a problem, I will take them at their word. I just want all this to be
clear
> and stated for the record.

In addition to Acka I am also a member of Mornington Nomic and .Nomic.
Mornington is very minor, only has the position of speaker (I believe) and
has no possibilities for split loyalties (that I can see). .Nomic on the
other hand is possibly soon to become a member of internomic and so the
potential for abuse exists. I am not currently in any cabinet posts (the
.Nomic equivalent of offices) but may be in the future. I hereby promise
that I would not let any of these interfere with my duty as president, and
I also promise not to take such positions if the populace of Acka would
prefer that I didn't.

The Gingham Wearer.

PS Anything I say about .Nomic may not be 100% accurate since I have been
unable to receive any postings to any newsgroups since Friday.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:03:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (Rex Mundi)

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> <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).

Because the Guidelines say so.  Specifically, "Zuriti'ili is never
committed simultaneously with any other crime."  You have no problem with
that, right?  That seems to be exactly what you're arguing.  But the
prime-number-of-times-committed rule means to me that 

 - two or more people somewhere on the world commit it simultaneously
(which I also find rather unbelievable), or
 - one person's commission of Zuriti'ili may count, for purposes of that
rule, as more than one commission (which I didn't include in my reasoning
in case I have to use it on appeal (read: I just thought it up now)), or
 - at the exact moment of one commission of Zuriti'ili, enough other
people to make a prime total are considered to have committed it, even
if they wouldn't have been otherwise.  In other words, a whole bunch of
people committed Zuriti'ili at the same time as you, but you were the only
one who got caught.  Note that the Guidelines never state that Zuriti'ili
cannot be committed through inaction.

Admittedly, that last line of reasoning is rather silly, but that's what I
like best about Ackanomic; even the silly can be reasonable.

But do you see where I'm coming from?

> 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!

You see??  You see what I mean?!?!  Ladies, gents, beings, and other
entities, CONVICT this pustulent boil on the pure and lovely face of Acka!
PUT EM AWAY!!!

Oh, and TGW, no hard feelings, right?  :-)

> 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.

Probably, but that's now Rex Mundi's department.  Mine doesn't have to be
valid because it's only a suggestion; his doesn't have to follow Rule 710
(Check out the wording; a judge can make any penalty e wants.)

- -rico

Murphy's Law: If you have an open-book exam, you will forget your book. 
Corollary: If you are given a take-home test, you will forget where you 
live. 

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:20:44 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 534 (Red Barn)

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > 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.

I have examined the CFJ archives, and I don't think this particular issue
has been directly addressed yet.  And of course, it is possible that what
was true a year and half ago is not true now, the rules and game state
have changed a lot.

> 
> 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
> 

Yeah.  Weird isn't it.  The 14 day limit presumably applies to us not
noticing the fact that the game ended, although the 14 day limit rule
itself was enacted long after the game would have ended...

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:20:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections: Question for candidates

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Thierry Joffrain wrote:

> This is not meant to be a loyalty test, but an ethics test. If candidates
> who are members of other nomics can state unequivocally that it will not be
> a problem, I will take them at their word. I just want all this to be clear
> and stated for the record.

I state unequivocally that my membership of .Nomic and my membership of
Mornington Nomic will not be a problem.  If anything, my moves in .Nomic
have been designed to get it into Internomic to bolster Acka's strengths
there, showing where my true loyalties lie.

Yours,
Slakko
your Chess-Umpire candidate for President
- -- 
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 18:35:21 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections: Question for candidates

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Thierry Joffrain wrote:
> 
> > This is not meant to be a loyalty test, but an ethics test. If candidates
> > who are members of other nomics can state unequivocally that it will not be
> > a problem, I will take them at their word. I just want all this to be clear
> > and stated for the record.
> 
> I state unequivocally that my membership of .Nomic and my membership of
> Mornington Nomic will not be a problem.  If anything, my moves in .Nomic
> have been designed to get it into Internomic to bolster Acka's strengths
> there, showing where my true loyalties lie.

Thats odd.  You belong to exactly the same Nomics as The Gingham Wearer
does...  Has anyone ever seen Slakko and TGW together in one place?

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> your Chess-Umpire candidate for President
> -- 
> 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 18:41:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections: Question for candidates

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> > I state unequivocally that my membership of .Nomic and my membership of
> > Mornington Nomic will not be a problem.  If anything, my moves in .Nomic
> > have been designed to get it into Internomic to bolster Acka's strengths
> > there, showing where my true loyalties lie.
> 
> Thats odd.  You belong to exactly the same Nomics as The Gingham Wearer
> does...  Has anyone ever seen Slakko and TGW together in one place?

Damn.  The old stunt of protesting against my own win has availed me
naught.  And I'd have got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling
kids...

:-)
:-)

Yours,
Slakko
emphatically not wearing any gingham
- -- 
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 18:44:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> If I have been hosed by a BWG Laser, then any post that I make to a public
> forum not in the form of an accepted rhyme, even if it is competely
> meaningless, still has a game effect.  
> To me, that seems to indicate that public posting of a message is a game
> action.

I admit that.  I know that public postings are game actions.
Given Guy's argument, it seems that they are probably public actions, and
I guess that's pretty much obvious too.

The only question is, what constitutes the public message?  The actual
text, or its intent?  If the message is the text, then my message was
specified in full.  If the message is the intent of the text, then it was
not.  
- -- 
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 18:51:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> > If I have been hosed by a BWG Laser, then any post that I make to a public
> > forum not in the form of an accepted rhyme, even if it is competely
> > meaningless, still has a game effect.  
> > To me, that seems to indicate that public posting of a message is a game
> > action.
> 
> I admit that.  I know that public postings are game actions.
> Given Guy's argument, it seems that they are probably public actions, and
> I guess that's pretty much obvious too.
> 
> The only question is, what constitutes the public message?  The actual
> text, or its intent?  If the message is the text, then my message was
> specified in full.  If the message is the intent of the text, then it was
> not.  

Sorry, correction.  If it was the intent of the text, then it was also
specified fully.  Only the _meaning_ of the text was not specified fully,
but I didn't think that a public message necessarily had to have an
unambiguous meaning to exist.  I don't think that game custom would say
that messages which are nonsense do not exist, and I don't think that a
reasonable interpretation of the public action rule would do that either.
A public message is a block of binary-represented characters.  It only has
meaning as interpreted by those who receive it.  So to say that the
meaning is unambiguous means that all those who receive it agree on the
meaning.  

Wouldn't this mean that one stick-in-the-mud could ensure no public action
ever succeeds, just because e deliberately interprets it differently?

It would be logical to assume, therefore, that public messages are
specified "fully and unambiguously" if their text is known, regardless of
the meaning of that text.  It is only when we look at other public actions
that we need to know what some text means (because sending a public
message _means_ sending some text.  It doesn't necessarily mean sending
what some text _means_).

Clear as to my stance?

Yours,
Slakko
up far too late for someone with a 10am lecture.

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

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #518
*******************************