Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #522
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, February 11 1998     Volume 03 : Number 522

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:07:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > 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.

Well, then if that's the case I shouldn't be guilty as SPAM has the
Trinket, not me.

Besides, the hat no longer existing does not mean that the hat
descriptions are no longer an Ackanomic document.

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 13:36:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

TGW wrote:
> 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).

Furthermore, if anybody was Being Annoying continuously during that time,
nobody could commit Zuriti'ili then by (4).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:21:25 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[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.

Wait a second....

No Ackanomic document is in existance for which those two trinkets could
possibly be altering its(the document's) meaning.

True, once apon a time an agenda hat existed which fitted this bill,
however, it had been distroyed well before I created these trinkets.

As for Vulcan.... Burn the Spatular :)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:35:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE) (upheld)

> Apparently the Court feels that mere possession of a trinket means
> that I am trying to alter the interpretation of a rule. 

Furrfu. Speaking only for myself, I feel that the *combined* actions
are all part of the annoying crime. It's not *just* the fact that you
were in possession of the stupid trinket, it's that you created it
(clearly with malice aforethought), and then maintained possession of
it, so that the more law-abiding Ackazens could not prevent the
Annoyance from running its full course. (Which is certainly has, I can
tell you.) It's the combination that permits one to say that your
crime is ongoing.

Anyway - all this may be moot, given the new facts that have come to
light. I just want to say that it's my personal feeling (again
speaking only for myself, and not the Court) that the requirements
placed upon a CFCJ's statement should serve the purpose of clearly
identifying the crime and its perpetrator, and not the purpose of
providing yet another technicality that can be exploited by
defendants. (Not all crimes can be perpetrated by a single action, or
in a single day.)

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:04:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 521 (FALSE) (overturned)

My apologizes for distributing this late, I received it last week, but
somehow it got dumped into the wrong folder.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 521 - January 26, 1998
Subject: Valarauker s Vote II
Initiator: else..if
Judge: Fortunato (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.)
Appeal Judgement: FALSE (overturned)

Statement:
	
19 votes were cast on proposal 2608, of which 11 were YES.

Initiators Reasoning:
	
I stated on the main mailing list that I was casting Valaurakar YES
on proposal 2608.  Although Valaurakar does not state how it can be cast,
the only reasonable answer is that it is cast the same way as everything
else-by informing the tabulator.  Since I did so, it was cast on proposal
2608 (counting as two, as specified in its blueprint.)

Judges Reasoning:  First, let me say that I accept this statement as an
unambiguous misspelling of the following:

"20 votes were cast on proposal 2606, of which 16 were YES"

This is perhaps not the initiator's intent, but he did cast Valaraukar
on proposal 2606, which passed regardless.  After looking through the
Rules regarding Voting and Valaraukar's Blueprint, I see no reason to
judge this CFJ FALSE.

Appellate Reasoning:

The Court is in full agreement with the appellant's argument, and has
nothing to add to it.

The Court specifies a five-point penalty to the original judge.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:10:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> 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.

Oh, please.  I was just specifying the date as exactly as possible given
the recent spate of CF(C)J's which were attacked due to ambiguous or
incorrect dates.  Let me follow in the footsteps of my second, Slakko, by
proving my point by quoting a dictionary definition on 'date':
date [n]: 1. nichiji  2. fujitsu  3. deetsu.

Unfortunately, the only dictionary I have handy is an English/Japanese
one.  But nevertheless, I just meant to specify the date to the nearest
minute possible.  Also, I sent the CFCJ on Sunday the 8th.  If you'd
noticed that, you would have pointed out that the date in question wasn't
earlier than 'the current date,' meaning the date I sent the CFCJ, and
therefore explicitly violated Rule 710.  Which is why I construed 'date' 
to contain a time as well, making the time of commission earlier than when
I sent Balsamic Dragon the CFCJ.

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

1) The penalty did not name Rico, the penalty named rico. (Yeah, I'm being
nitpicky, but so are you :-))
2) You're absolutely correct.  But if you appeal and the verdict is
upheld, you might receive a *valid* penalty.  You really want that?

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

This is also true; that's why it's up to the judge's discretion.  I was
going to add something about how a friend of a friend of a cousin of a
cousin heard an unsubstantiated rumor from a noncredible source about how
attempt to modify the Guidelines for Zuriti'ili constitutes Zuriti'ili,
but realized that that actually *would* make it impossible to commit it.

Oh, BTW Rex Mundi, you forgot to make your own Guideline, which was half
the reason I submitted this CFCJ.  :-(

> 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.

This is also true.  If it is the case that simple possession of an
Annoyingly created trinket constitutes a Crime, then it is indeed no
longer possible to commit Zuriti'ili as long as the creator of such a
Trinket/Org/whatever retains possession of it.  I think that this
reasoning is somewhat fallacious on the Court's part, however.

By the way, I *did* vote for your Proposal 2704; I think it is a good idea
to be able to start fresh if the Guidelines get too unwieldy.  I just
wouldn't condone a hearing on the subject now unless the CFCJ 151 bit 
becomes custom.

> 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. 

This is kind of halfway between the chicken-and-egg paradox and the
information creation one.  I'm sure there's a parallel somewhere that I'm
simply too brain-fried to think of (if anyone knows which one I'm thinking
of, please help me out...)  Yes, it is tough to prove that two things
happen simultaneously.  If you asked me to prove that exactly as I typed
this last letter 'r', you were inhaling gingham, I couldn't do it.  Even
if you _were_ smoking gingham as I was typing this letter, because you're
wherever you are and I'm off on this godforsaken rock in tropical
paradise, I would have a tough time proving that you were inhaling
simultaneously with me typing that 'r'.

So how can I prove that two or more instances of Zuriti'ili are committed
simultaneously?  Because the Guidelines imply they must be, and that's
good enough for me.  You say it can't be proved that they're simultaneous
and therefore the Guidelines are wrong; I say the Guidelines are right,
therefore they're simultaneous.  I suppose that's more a difference
of opinion than a paradox, but you try thinking clearly after a night of
Bacardi 151 and a test on Intelligent Agents the next morning.

> Second, how can Zuriti'ili be committed simultaneously with
> itself if it can't be committed simultaneously with another crime? I say it

Why not?  Doesn't 'another crime' imply a different one?  If I say I'm
giving all my A$ to 'another person,' who would think I mean myself?  OK,
that's a bad analogy, but how about this: "Broccoli can never be eaten
with another vegetable."  Can I eat more than one stalk of broccoli now?

Again, the only reasons I submitted this were to show that Zuriti'ili
isn't obsolete, and to get a new Guideline added because I like it.  As I
said, I voted for your proposal, and I will support a depose-the-current-
Guidelines hearing if it is true that Slakko has been continuously
Annoying since creating eir little Trinket, therefore making it indeed
impossible for you (or anyone) to commit Zuriti'ili.  Otherwise, though, I
see no need.

- -rico

. . . Go hence, and sin more creatively next time. 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:16:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Chrome Streak

The Brass Monkey just climbed the Monument To Futility and shouted:
"The makers of the Chrome Streak shall be awarded 5 bonus points!"

This was quite a long Streak, and fairly evenly distributed this time
(possibly because of the frobbed Proposal queue...:-).  The score bonuses
are as follows:

Slakko: +15 (P2668, P2670, P2681)
Fortunato: +5 (P2671)
Malenkai: +10 (P2673, P2674)
Slagothor: +5 (P2675)
The Gingham Wearer: +5 (P2678)
else...if: +5 (P2682)
Vynd: +5 (P2683)
breadbox: +10 (P2684, P2685)
Calvin N Hobbes: +5 (P2686)
Alfvaen: +5 (P2687)

Hmmm...only else...if's second accepted Proposal, and it ends up in a Chrome
Streak.  What are the odds?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Zappacosta:When I Fall In Love Again
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
"Is it a party?"

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:27:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 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.
>
>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?
	I don't see him actually performing the action, just mentioning
that it's possible.  Maybe he got the description out of a book he read.

- --
- -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 17:27:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2711

>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.
	If this fails but a large number of people support it (say, >40%)
then what we could do is collect all the proposals for a new org system,
and pass a rule that creats a hearing.  That hearing would determine which
method we use.  That way (in theory) anyone who supported any redesign of
the org system would support it, and whichever had the most support would
pass.

- --
- -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 17:27:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma!

Seeing as LSAP has just hit what is possibly an all-time high at 14, I
think it is time to spread a little Otzma.

I hereby announce that an Otzma Day will start at 03:00am Acka Time on
Sunday 15th February 1998.

Yours,
Slakko
Rune-Maker
- -- 
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 17:52:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Apology

I'm very sorry for committing this heartless, thoughtless and blatantly
rule disregarding act of Zuriti'ili. To be honest with you I realised that
what I was doing could be Zuriti'ili but I never thought it would be. I
even thought that possibly it couldn't be, since no-one else appeared to be
committing Zuriti'ili at the time. I guess I should have looked harder.
Again, I am very, very sorry.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:07:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Purchase of another party chess piece and possible minor scam

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> Apparently TGW and Niccolo have different opinions about the extent to
> which "involuntary" applies in this context.  Let's go to the definition:

I commend Slakko's keen powers of observation.

Slakko appears to invoke here Game Custom that words which are not defined
explicitly in the rules, are interpreted by their standard English
meanings. Good call.
 > 
> 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.

It is my opinion that Game Custom weighs towards my interpretation, and
since there is no clear definition in the rules for invluntary, nor should
there be, as such a definition would surely be scam material, Game Custom
should lead us to accept that interpretation.

However, as Chess-Umpire, do you believe that TGW's action suceeded and
are you harfing PartyChess currently as if it did?

Niccolo Flychuck

 > > 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 18:11:57 -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:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> It is my opinion that Game Custom weighs towards my interpretation, and
> since there is no clear definition in the rules for invluntary, nor should
> there be, as such a definition would surely be scam material, Game Custom
> should lead us to accept that interpretation.
> 
> However, as Chess-Umpire, do you believe that TGW's action suceeded and
> are you harfing PartyChess currently as if it did?

Given your arguments, both previously and now, and Balsamic Dragon
weighing in, I have the feeling that any CFJ on the issue would rule the
scam to have failed (not that that's a certainty or anything).  So until
further notice I am harfing as if the scam failed, and so the Q-ball was
placed.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "wishing TGW had bought himself an il-Nabi" 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 #522
*******************************