Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #521
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, February 11 1998     Volume 03 : Number 521

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:06:48 -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 - summon tornado
# 4 - untouch me
# 5 - share my expenses
# 6 - share my income
# 7 - tactical retreat
# 8 - paratroop
# 9 - truthseeker
# 10 - fix my gadget
# 11 - scientist for a day
# 12 - art thief
# 13 - skeleton key
# 14 - grave robber
# .
# No swinging sale(max in play)
# No foul fowl(max in play)

No. of sides on every die:     14
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

      9

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]  Tue Feb 10 21:06:31 1998
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id VAA18988 for <[email-masked]>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:06:31 -0800
> Received: from edtntnt1-port-70.agt.net(198.161.157.136) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma018984; Tue Feb 10 21:06:22 1998
> Received: (from alfvaen@localhost) by telusplanet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA05005 for [email-masked]; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:07:11 -0700
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Chorg
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:07:08 -0700 (MST)
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
> Content-Type: text
> 
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 14
> #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 - summon tornado
> #C 4 - untouch me
> #C 5 - share my expenses
> #C 6 - share my income
> #C 7 - tactical retreat
> #C 8 - paratroop
> #C 9 - truthseeker
> #C 10 - fix my gadget
> #C 11 - scientist for a day
> #C 12 - art thief
> #C 13 - skeleton key
> #C 14 - grave robber
> #C .
> #C No swinging sale(max in play)
> #C No foul fowl(max in play)
> 
> 

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

iQCVAwUBNOEx5D8NitsTFjcVAQEMdQQAxYWdy7ekROFdbdlTWcsMc0wl9R6lqRa8
jF0dRPKu+pZ5OSkr0SeaK6/y6fgRQYeGCoSL+SbO16bZbCS52zMBI+3RJSA3ulg+
EY7NwgtgNc4JTZ7TMP3TBfRysu3zMx+ZYvCkH7+PcbkFDkFjJe/IS9JGvegc0bYK
RabQBTYT7fo=
=ytWp
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:36:00 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Gumball

It is(in Ackatime, at least)Feb 11, the second Wednesday of the month,
and I am chewing the gumball.  Thoughtfully, ruminatively, as if something
deep and meaningful were occupying my brain besides frustration at my
POP server's chronic inability to recognize my password and allow me to
download my mail.

Oh, well, I discovered that I'd forgotten to update the link from the
main page to breadbox's new and improved History of Ackanomic, so I'm
taking some time to read it while downloading old email digests archives.
And chewing that gumball.

The amazing thing about the Ackanomic Gumball is that if you want it to,
you can _un_chew it, and have it pop out of your mouth all hard and
round again, like a reverse-video kind of thing.  Feels weird in the
mouth, though.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--David Sylvian:Gone To Earth
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
I didn't really die.  It was just a long night.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:55:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gumball

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> The amazing thing about the Ackanomic Gumball is that if you want it to,
> you can _un_chew it, and have it pop out of your mouth all hard and
> round again, like a reverse-video kind of thing.  Feels weird in the
> mouth, though.

Really?  Since when does Rule 500 enable you to manipulate this entity in
a manner not specified by the rules?
I think our ex-President is turning into a wanted criminal.
Caped Crusader, where are you?

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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:59:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Purchase of another party chess piece and possible minor scam

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> I am founding a new organization called "Kerplunk, kerplunk III" paying the
> standard harfer fee to do so. I proxy my support to Kerplunk, kerplunk III.
> I suggest Kerplunk, kerplunk III create ten of all existing party chess
> pieces except for king and tornado, and one party chess piece tornado, all
> for The Gingham Wearer. I believe this happens and doesn't fall afoul of
> rule 510.
> 
> From rule 510:
> 
> "No Player, Undead, or Organization may use more A$'s to buy, trade, give
> or in any way move out of his account, than there are in his/her account at
> that moment in time. In other words, a player may never voluntarily go into
> debt, but it is possible that a player may go into debt involuntarily."
> 
> From rule 1230.1
> 
> "D. A player or Organization may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
> existing type for a Swinger. When this is done, the player or Organization
> pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new piece is created,
> off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger. A new piece costs
> A$1, plus A$7 times the material value of the piece. A King may not be
> purchased in this way."
> 
> From my understanding of the above buying a party chess piece is not a
> voluntary payment. What actually happens is that the player/org creates the
> partychess piece. They then, as an involuntary action are forced to pay
> for having created a piece. This is supported by the phrase "when this is
> done" which, to me, indicates that the payment happens just after the
> creation of the piece.
I disagree entirely with The Gingham Wearer's reasoning.

Creating the PartyChessPieces in a voluntary action. Paying the creation
cost is the result of this action and no other action, it is a reulst one
knows ahead of time, and not something that is thrust upon the player.
Paying the cost is completely the result of the player's voluntary
actions. There are no componenets in the process that leads up to this
payment other than  the player's own choice to create a PartyChessPiece.
There is no way that this paymentcan defended as an involuntary action.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:06:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2711

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >> 	I am aware that this de-modularizes the org system.  I feel that
> >> this allows us to create structures which are more flexible.For example,
> >No. It creates a rigid, structure with no room for growth, and requires
> >cumbersom language to get anything done.
> 	I think we're looking at the same thing two different ways, so I
> won't argue this point again.  Also, please try not to quote the entire
> post.

That's another way of saying we disagree, I guess we knew that.
Sorry,I just can't vote for this proposal. I suppose addressing my
objections would have been too much of a compromise for this proposal. 
I'll wait and see how it goes before I propose anything for Organizations.

Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> - --
> - -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran
> 
> 	<[email-masked]>
> 
> 	Success is the child of audacity.
> 		-Benjamin Disraeli
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:10:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Purchase of another party chess piece and possible minor scam

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> I disagree entirely with The Gingham Wearer's reasoning.
> 
> Creating the PartyChessPieces in a voluntary action. Paying the creation
> cost is the result of this action and no other action, it is a reulst one
> knows ahead of time, and not something that is thrust upon the player.
> Paying the cost is completely the result of the player's voluntary
> actions. There are no componenets in the process that leads up to this
> payment other than  the player's own choice to create a PartyChessPiece.
> There is no way that this paymentcan defended as an involuntary action.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

Apparently TGW and Niccolo have different opinions about the extent to
which "involuntary" applies in this context.  Let's go to the definition:

Involuntary \In*vol"un*ta*ry\, a. [L. involuntarius. See In- not, and
Voluntary.] 1. Not having will or the power of choice. 

2. Not under the influence or control of the will; not voluntary; as, the
involuntary movements of the body; involuntary muscle fibers. 

3. Not proceeding from choice; done unwillingly; reluctant; compulsory;
as, involuntary submission. 

Now - 1. Well, you create the piece.  You have _no choice_ over whether or
not to pay, so it is involuntary.
2. Could be argued same as 1.
3. Works with Niccolo - it proceeded from choice, but in itself the
payment was choiceless.

So this now comes down to which definition of involuntary, all of which
are provided by Websters, that you accept.

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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:12:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2711

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> > 	I think we're looking at the same thing two different ways, so I
> > won't argue this point again.  Also, please try not to quote the entire
> > post.
> 
> That's another way of saying we disagree, I guess we knew that.
> Sorry,I just can't vote for this proposal. I suppose addressing my
> objections would have been too much of a compromise for this proposal. 
> I'll wait and see how it goes before I propose anything for Organizations.

Why do I get the feeling this has become another Subers?  We talk for
weeks about trying to get a "correct" version of the proposal, addressing
concerns people have raised, but it turns out that there are sufficiently
many incompatible points of view that no change can occur, even if a
majority of people are against the current system.

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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:15:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Purchase of another party chess piece and possible minor scam

> 
> "D. A player or Organization may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
> existing type for a Swinger. When this is done, the player or
Organization
> pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new piece is created,
> off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger. A new piece costs
> A$1, plus A$7 times the material value of the piece. A King may not be
> purchased in this way."
> 

I don't usually get into Party Chess arguments, but it seems clear to me
that the phrase "When this is done," indicates that what follows is a
description of the process rather than the next step after the piece is
created.  As in, 

Sometimes, a scientist has to get rid of a lab assistant because they are
asking too many questions.  When this is done, the scientist must make sure
that no one is watching, and then club the lab assistant over the head.

This view is supported by the fact that the rest of the sentence says that
the price is paid, and the new piece is created.  Not the other way around.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:27:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

> Call For Criminal Judgement 151
>   Subject: Being Annoying
> Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
>     Judge: Goldenmean
> Judgement: TRUE
> Appealed by Slakko
> Judgement: TRUE (upheld)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Slakko has committed the crime of being annoying on the 26th of January.
> 
> Initiator's Comments:
> 
> On January 26th a CFJ was distributed, with Slakko as the initiator
> claiming that "at least the standard harfer fee" referred to the trinket
> of that name, not the amount of money. From this CFJ it is clear that
> Slakko is attempting to alter the meaning of the phrase "at least the
> standard harfer fee" and so he has been annoying as per rule 721.
> 
> Suggested Penalty:
> 
> Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs, and a
> gaol sentence of 1 day.
> 
> Judge's Comments:
> 
> Rule 721 states:
> 
> Exploiting lexical equivalence to alter, or attempt to alter, the
> interpretation of a word or phrase in any Ackanomic document, [in the
> judgement of a judge], is Annoying.
> 
> While Slakko is correct when e states that e created eir trinket before
> the rule creating the standard harfer fee came into existence, e did not
> create it before the proposal concerning the standard harfer fee came
> into existence. Proposal 2557 came into existence on Jan 2, 1998 and
> Slakko created the trinket "at least the standard Harfer Fee" on Jan
> 8,1998. Proposal 2557
> 
> is an Ackanomic document, therefore Slakko is guilty of the crime of
> being annoying.
> 
> Actual Penalty:
> 
> Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs and 1 day
> in gaol.
> 
> Appealer's Comments:
> 
> I admit I committed the crime. I deny I committed it on the 26th of
> January. By the rules, this CFCJ may only be found true if it is found
> that I committed the crime in question _on_the_date_in_question. The
> first round judge made no mention of the date, which was the crux of my
> original defence.
> 
> Supreme Court's Comments:
> 
> The appealer's argument is that his crime (which he freely admits to)
> was committed only in the process of creating the trinket, and not by
> submitting a CFJ on the matter.
> 
> It is a valid point that, if you take it as a given that the trinket
> exists, there should be a CFJ issued to determine its ramifications.
> This act, in and of itself, should be considered innocuous. However,
> it is also significant that a CFJ is an almost certainly necessary
> step for this trinket creation to successfully make use of Malenkai's
> Loophole.
> 
> The trinket has been in existence for weeks. During that time, Slakko
> has had ample opportunity to destroy it, or relinquish its possession
> so that it could be destroyed. He has given no indication that he
> intends to do either of these things. The Court can only conclude that
> he intends to pursue his Annoying exploitation of lexical equivalence,
> even in full knowledge (by his own admission) of the criminal nature
> of his actions.
> 
> The Court feels that, even if one decides to give Slakko the benefit
> of the doubt and not consider the CFJ submission as part of his
> criminal act, Slakko was still committing his Crime by choosing not to
> destroy his trinket. His Crime is not localized to a single day;
> indeed, Slakko has been continuously in the process of committing this
> Crime since the Trinket was created. One could argue that any day
> during the existence of this Trinket would be sufficient to identify
> the precise Crime (which is the main purpose served by the requirement
> of a date in the CFCJ's statement). Attempting to select one
> particular action involved, and stating that that was the only point
> in time when a crime was being committed, strikes the Court as
> needless sophistry.
> 
> The appealer is penalized 15 points.
> 
> Actual Penalty:
> 
> Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs and 1
> day in gaol.
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:28:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

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

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. ]

Judges Reasoning: I concur with the initiator's reasoning.

Penalty: A public apology of 5 or more lines, and a transfer of 5 A$ to
rico.

Guideline: Most instances on Zuriti'ili go undetected.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

> > Call For Criminal Judgement 151
> >   Subject: Being Annoying
> > Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
> >     Judge: Goldenmean
> > Judgement: TRUE
> > Appealed by Slakko
> > Judgement: TRUE (upheld)
> > 
> > Appealer's Comments:
> > 
> > I admit I committed the crime. I deny I committed it on the 26th of
> > January. By the rules, this CFCJ may only be found true if it is found
> > that I committed the crime in question _on_the_date_in_question. The
> > first round judge made no mention of the date, which was the crux of my
> > original defence.
> > 
> > Supreme Court's Comments:
> > 
> > The appealer's argument is that his crime (which he freely admits to)
> > was committed only in the process of creating the trinket, and not by
> > submitting a CFJ on the matter.
> > 
> > It is a valid point that, if you take it as a given that the trinket
> > exists, there should be a CFJ issued to determine its ramifications.
> > This act, in and of itself, should be considered innocuous. However,
> > it is also significant that a CFJ is an almost certainly necessary
> > step for this trinket creation to successfully make use of Malenkai's
> > Loophole.
> > 
> > The trinket has been in existence for weeks. During that time, Slakko
> > has had ample opportunity to destroy it, or relinquish its possession
> > so that it could be destroyed. He has given no indication that he
> > intends to do either of these things. The Court can only conclude that
> > he intends to pursue his Annoying exploitation of lexical equivalence,
> > even in full knowledge (by his own admission) of the criminal nature
> > of his actions.
> > 
> > The Court feels that, even if one decides to give Slakko the benefit
> > of the doubt and not consider the CFJ submission as part of his
> > criminal act, Slakko was still committing his Crime by choosing not to
> > destroy his trinket. His Crime is not localized to a single day;
> > indeed, Slakko has been continuously in the process of committing this
> > Crime since the Trinket was created. One could argue that any day
> > during the existence of this Trinket would be sufficient to identify
> > the precise Crime (which is the main purpose served by the requirement
> > of a date in the CFCJ's statement). Attempting to select one
> > particular action involved, and stating that that was the only point
> > in time when a crime was being committed, strikes the Court as
> > needless sophistry.
> > 
> > The appealer is penalized 15 points.
> > 
> > Actual Penalty:
> > 
> > Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs and 1
> > day in gaol.

Apparently the Court feels that mere possession of a trinket means that I
am trying to alter the interpretation of a rule.  Surely, once the trinket
has been created, it can no longer _change_ the interpretation of the
rule.  I quote from Rule 721:

I. Malenkai's Loophole 
Exploiting lexical equivalence to alter, or attempt to alter, the
interpretation of a word or phrase in any Ackanomic document, [in the
judgement of a judge], is Annoying. 

Once the Trinket was created, the rules were no longer capable of having
their meanings altered by the existence of the trinket.

I would like to hear reasoning from the Judges as to why possession is an
attempt to alter.  I don't feel they covered this point at all in their
reasoning, and yet the Crime only occurs when an _attempt to alter_ the
interpretation of a rule or rules is made.

I will not appeal this, however, as I have nothing to gain except A$25
from it, and I know that the judges are unlikely to change their minds on
this one.  I just don't grasp the logic of it.

After all, it would make K 2 guilty of Being Annoying today, because of
his continued possession of naked and the town hall steps.
It would also make all members of Vulcan guilty of Being Annoying today,
because they possess a Parka (obviously an attempt to change the meaning
of Beldin's Pants).
Is this really what the rule means?  I guess so, the SC said so.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:43:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  CFJ 528 (deadbeat)

As rufus has not yet returned a verdict, this goes to the acting Praetor
who is, I believe, Calvin n Hobbes

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 528 - February 2, 1998
Subject: Judgment Overturn
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: rufus  (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Calvin n Hobbes
Judgement:

Statement:

Some Judgements may not be overturned within 14 days of it being issued.

Reasoning:

Rule 215 says: "All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in
effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game
state at that time. "

It further states: "A statement verified (or nullified) by judgement
applies retroactively to any past game situation it may concern. "

Therefore, if a judgement is overturned on appeal, in such a way that the
original judge's interpretation of a rule was wrong, then the first
judgement never happened, by Rule 215, provided (as in accordance with
rule 701: "If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically
knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days,
the action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but
it is still a Crime.") that the judgement is overturned within 14 days.

Hence a judgement which is dependent upon the interpretation of a rule may
not be overturned within 14 days of its issue.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:58:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote: 
> > Statement:
> >
> > Slakko has committed the crime of being annoying on the 26th of January.
> > Call For Criminal Judgement 151
> > Judgement: TRUE (upheld)
> > The trinket has been in existence for weeks. During that time, Slakko
> > has had ample opportunity to destroy it, or relinquish its possession
> > so that it could be destroyed. He has given no indication that he
> > intends to do either of these things. The Court can only conclude that
> > he intends to pursue his Annoying exploitation of lexical equivalence,
> > even in full knowledge (by his own admission) of the criminal nature
> > of his actions.

This is an outrageous lie.  SPAM is in possession of the trinket.  I do
not have it.  In fact, I transferred the trinket to SPAM in this message:

:Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:52:11 +0000 ()
:From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
:To: Ackanomic Main Mailing List <[email-masked]>
:Subject: Acka: Transfer

:I gift "at least the standard Harfer fee", the trinket, to SPAM.

So, apparently I was guilty of Being Annoying even though I was not in
possession of the Trinket in question on the date in question.
If I didn't have it, how could I use it on the date in question?

I am appealing this CFJ with the following reasoning:

Double Appeal Reasoning:

The Court was mistaken in claiming I was in possession of the Trinket in
Question on the date in question.  I had relinquished the trinket, as
evidenced by a message, available in the main ackanomic list logs, dated
24 Jan 1998 17:52:11 GMT, gifting it to SPAM.  As a result, I could no
longer be annoying from that date forward according to the rest of the
reasoning of the Justices. 

I note that the reason the Justices were probably mistaken is that the P/E
page had not been corrected, and both SPAM and myself were listed as being
owners of the trinket.

If I should be unfortunate enough as to have this appeal turned down as
well, I will rest secure in the knowledge that The Caped Crusader should
go after all members of Vulcan for their continued possession of the
Trinket called "Parka" - clearly an attempt to exploit Lexical Equivalence
and alter the meaning of Beldin's Pants.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:01:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Apologies

Apologies to all those who thought I wasn't going to appeal.
I initially failed to realise that the Court made a mistake by claiming I
was still in possession of the Trinket.  This is clearly false, and I
therefore feel that an appeal which points this out should have some
effect.

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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:16:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

> This is an outrageous lie.  SPAM is in possession of the trinket.  I do
> not have it.  In fact, I transferred the trinket to SPAM in this message:

> :Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:52:11 +0000 ()
> :From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> :To: Ackanomic Main Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> :Subject: Acka: Transfer

> :I gift "at least the standard Harfer fee", the trinket, to SPAM.

> So, apparently I was guilty of Being Annoying even though I was not in
> possession of the Trinket in question on the date in question.
> If I didn't have it, how could I use it on the date in question?

Slakko is correct in this.  I had it represented incorrectly on the PE
page(due to a typo in the entitylog(hey, _you_ try typing
"theatleaststandardharferfee" twice in a row).

However, I wonder at how specifically one can pinpoint that time at which
Malenkai's Loophole is exploited.  And if Slakko was, say, claiming that
SPAM possessed "at least the standard Harfer fee" on January 26th, despite
not being in ownership of it, then I could see that this could be done
despite lack of ownership.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--FM:Why Don't You Take It
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
We now return you to your regularly scheduled technical difficulties.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:30:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Chocolate Frog

Fortunato has been the first to find the Chocolate Frog.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--FM:Why Don't You Take It
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
Sorta like having a medical system in which giant pandas are _essential_.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:40:06 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Chocolate Frog

Woo-hoo!  First to have the Oars, and now first to have the Frog...

Fortunato
First Citizen

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, February 11, 1998 11:31 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Acka: Chocolate Frog
>
>
>Fortunato has been the first to find the Chocolate Frog.
>
>
>--
>--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
>Song In My Head--FM:Why Don't You Take It
>Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
>Sorta like having a medical system in which giant pandas are _essential_.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:40:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Slakko is correct in this.  I had it represented incorrectly on the PE
> page(due to a typo in the entitylog(hey, _you_ try typing
> "theatleaststandardharferfee" twice in a row).
> 
> However, I wonder at how specifically one can pinpoint that time at which
> Malenkai's Loophole is exploited.  And if Slakko was, say, claiming that
> SPAM possessed "at least the standard Harfer fee" on January 26th, despite
> not being in ownership of it, then I could see that this could be done
> despite lack of ownership.

That's as may be.  However, the Court's reasoning implied that they could
infer I was still wanting to change the rule's meaning because I had made
no attempt to destroy or relinquish the trinket.  This argument now
collapses because I had relinquished the trinket.  Other arguments may of
course be applicable.

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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:00:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

> Call For Criminal Judgement 155 - February 9, 1998
> Subject: Zuriti ili
> Initiator: Slagothor (sent February 8, 1998, 4:55 p.m.)
> Judge: Rex Mundi (selected February 9, 1998, 11:50 a.m.)
> Judgement: TRUE

I am appealing this verdict.

My reasoning is as follows:

Firstly I note that this might actually be invalid.

From rule 710:

3) Its "statement" shall be "X committed the Crime of Y on Z", where X is
replaced with the name of a registered player, Y is replaced by the name of
a Crime as defined in the current ruleset, and Z is replaced by a date
earlier than the current date. 

Compare this with the original form in which the CFCJ was submitted:

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

Sunday, February 8, 1998, 14:11 EST doesn't look like a date to me, more
like a date and a time. I'm not going to dwell on this but it is something
the supreme court might want to consider.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure the penalty is invalid. AFAIK there are no
current players with the Ackanomic name of Rico.

Nextly, I point out that just having all the guidelines apply to you does
not necessarily mean you have committed Zuriti'ili.

Nextly, with the lexical equivalence thing, it's quite likely that someone
was being annoying at exactly the same time which would make this false,
according to guideline 4.

Lastly, I point out two of the Zuriti'ili guidelines:

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

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

For five to be true, at least one other instance of Zuriti'ili must have
been committed at *exactly* the same time. I say that this is not possible.
First, I doubt that it is possible for any two things to happen
simultaneously. Second, how can Zuriti'ili be committed simultaneously with
itself if it can't be committed simultaneously with another crime? I say it
can't, which would mean that this, and all future Zuriti'ili CFCJs should
be judged false (unless of course my proposal passes to modify Zuriti'ili).

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:01:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

> After all, it would make K 2 guilty of Being Annoying today, because of
> his continued possession of naked and the town hall steps.
> It would also make all members of Vulcan guilty of Being Annoying today,
> because they possess a Parka (obviously an attempt to change the meaning
> of Beldin's Pants).
> Is this really what the rule means?  I guess so, the SC said so.

No it wouldn't. K 2 isn't being annoying because the danced naked on the
town hall steps  hat no longer exists (probably). Also, I don't see why an
org doing something that would be a crime for a player automatically means
that all members of the org are committing the crime.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #521
*******************************