Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #46
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Tuesday, March 3 1998        Volume 03 : Number 046

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:16:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malheureusement

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Balsamic Dragon received ten nominations to the Hall of Elders.  (At
> least, I think so...there's some ambiguity as to whether the original
> nomination counts as well.)  Unfortunately, there were 22 active players
> at the time, so e narrowly missed being inducted.

If I can do so, I support eir nomination.

Also if I can do so (if mr cwm's day was a holiday and TGW's attempt
failed) I take possession of the Little Lamb, paying the requisite A$10.

- -Hubert

When you do a good deed, get a receipt, in case heaven is like the IRS 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:46:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Miscellania

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Ah, three members. Excellent. I suggest Kerplunk, kerplunk III gets rid
> of it's open admissions policy.

I approve of this suggestion, though we now have five members.

> I don't see what the problem is here. So long as any officers, players or
> whatever are unambiguous they aren't doing anything wrong. Incidentally

I would agree, except that Rule 251 explicitly requires that official Acka
business use this name.  Which was my reason for the whole scam in the
first place.  I would be interested to see what others think of the
subject, and whether, given Hibert's sudden passengership on this boat, it
would in fact be unambiguous if Slakko were to distribute a CFJ initiated
by Hub*rt.  Given Slakko's persuasive arguments as to the ambiguity of
"letturc," I would have to say this would fall into the same category.
Too, though this is probably up to Alfvaen, if an unambiguous misspelling
of "Hubert"  counts as a name for "official Ackanomic business," it
probably counts the same for the purposes of Treasure 200.  This, at
least, is my opinion; I don't see how you can have your eggplant and eat
it too.

> Niccolo said Hubert during the proceeds of the auction.

Yes, I did notice.  Thanks for keeping track of this on your treasures
page; my mind is woefully incapable of remembering more than the first two
or three to do so.  But they're dropping like flies...

- -Hubert

When you do a good deed, get a receipt, in case heaven is like the IRS 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 03:40:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CotC Noms and Appointment

The following players nominated themselves for Clerk of the Court:

Hibert
The Gingham Wearer
Alfvaen

I think else...if successfully nominated too, but I seem to have lost eir
nomination.  Could e please let me know to confirm ASAP.
I'll make my decision public once that becomes known.

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:20:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ACK Issue 1

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

>  A c k a n o m i c   C y c l o p e d i a   o f   K n o w l e d g e
> 
> Vol. 1, Issue 1.                                            March 2, 1998
> 
> In this issue:
> - - Find a GAMES T-Shirt!
> - - Treasure Statistics
> - - $500 in real treasure
> 
> Find a GAMES T-Shirt!
> - ---------------------
> Advertisement, from /dev/joe
> 
> Treasure 181, buried by /dev/joe in August, was never found while the
> hidden contest then going on was active.  The April 1998 issue of GAMES,
> as always for April issues, contains a hidden contest.  I have found
> this contest, so it shouldn't be too tough for some of you out there.

I only get to see the April 1998 issue in April :(

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:22:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : resigning from the position of AckaPhysicist

As much as I'd like, I don't have time to pore over the Codex of Kra and
produce further translations. I feel it would be unfair to deprive acka of
such translations. Consequently, I resign from the position of
AckaPhysicist.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 08:45:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malheureusement

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Huberk wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> > Balsamic Dragon received ten nominations to the Hall of Elders.  (At
> > least, I think so...there's some ambiguity as to whether the original
> > nomination counts as well.)  Unfortunately, there were 22 active players
> > at the time, so e narrowly missed being inducted.
> 
> If I can do so, I support eir nomination.
> 
> Also if I can do so (if mr cwm's day was a holiday and TGW's attempt
> failed) I take possession of the Little Lamb, paying the requisite A$10.

It is too early in the day to do that - it would need to happen 7 days
after the GAD results were announced (not including the holiday) - so no
matter what happened, you still haven't got the lamb.

The GAD results were first announced for that round on Monday 28/2 at 9:52
Acka time.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:05:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malheureusement

> > Unless I missed anyone, the original nomination came from Calvin N Hobbes,
> > and the supporting votes came from Slakko, /dev/joe, Alfvaen, rufus, The
> > Gingham Wearer, Goldenmean, Niccolo Flychuck, Wild Card, and ThinMan.
> > 
> > Unless, of course, mr cwm's day _is_ a Holiday, in which case there's
> > still another day.  (Somebody clear this up, quick...or at least get the
> > CFJ into the courts where it can wait for them to be fixed.)
> > 
>  Some other people support this whilst we sort out the Holiday...
> 
>  Wild Card.

  I do so.

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
It's still paranoia, even if they really are out to get you.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:21:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malheureusement

> > Also if I can do so (if mr cwm's day was a holiday and TGW's attempt
> > failed) I take possession of the Little Lamb, paying the requisite
A$10.
> 
> It is too early in the day to do that - it would need to happen 7 days
> after the GAD results were announced (not including the holiday) - so
no
> matter what happened, you still haven't got the lamb.
> 
> The GAD results were first announced for that round on Monday 28/2 at
9:52
> Acka time.

Oh good. That means I can take possession of the little lamb if I haven't
already done so. Therefore, if I have not already taken possession of the
little lamb then I take possession of it now.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:15:53 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: ackaPhysicist Nomination

I am now accepting nominations for the optional office of AcakPhysicist.
Reply to nominate your self.

hibert
Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:17:49 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  NAP swinger election

The only nomionation I received was from Guy Fawkes, so he wins by
default.

hibert
Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:22:21 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Praetor

I am still taking nominations for Praetor, as I have not received any to
date.

hibert 
Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  NAP swinger election

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> The only nomionation I received was from Guy Fawkes, so he wins by
> default.
> 
  Wait!  I nominated me!

 Message text included below:

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:43:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
To: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: nomination for NAP swinger

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> The Non-aligned party swinger office is now vacant.  I am accepting
> nominations.  To nominate yourself, you need to not be in a Party.  Or
> rather, you need to be not in a party, since you cannot not be.
>
  Whatever.

  I nominate me.

  Wild Card.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:31:16 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  NAP swinger election

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>   Wait!  I nominated me!
> 
D'oh!  I hate the end of the month.  really I do.  I whack myself over the
head with the D'oh!.

I will call an election in another message.
hibert

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 12:32:58 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  NAP swinger election

Having made a stupid mistake, I am forced to call an election.  The
canadates are 
Guy Fawkes
Wild Card

Reply to vote.  (votes by players not in Political Party count double))

hibert
Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:50:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 151 (FALSE (overturned on 2nd appeal))

Call For Criminal Judgement 151
  Subject: Being Annoying
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
    Judge: Goldenmean
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Slakko
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by Slakko
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Slakko has committed the crime of being annoying on the 26th of January.

Initiator's Reasoning:

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 Reasoning:

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.

1st Appealer's Reasoning:

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 Reasoning:

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.

2nd Appealer's 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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

It appears that the Court was in possession of incorrect information
at the time that it previously ruled on CFCJ 151. Slakko was not in
possession of the offending trinket at the time, and thus it is not
fair to assume that he would still have been able to have it
destroyed.

As stated previously, Slakko is clearly guilty of the Crime of Being
Annoying. The question is whether he did anything on the given date of
January 26th to contribute to that crime. The CFJ submission, the
Court feels, clearly cannot be so designated. Given the trinket's
existence, a CFJ is a necessary step if there is any debate regarding
its effect.

The Court is therefore overturning its original decision. Regardless
of the defendant's guilt or innocence, he was not guilty of the Crime
of being Annoying on the date in question.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:51:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 155 (TRUE (upheld))

Call For Criminal Judgement 155
  Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: Hubert
    Judge: Rex Mundi
Judgement: TRUE
Appealed by The Gingham Wearer
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

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

Initiator's 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. ]

Judge's Reasoning:

I concur with the initiator's reasoning.

Guideline: Most instances on Zuriti'ili go undetected.

Actual Penalty:

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

Appealer's Reasoning:

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).

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

To answer the appealer's arguments in order:

Firstly, the terms "date" and "time" are often used to refer to both a
date and a time, i.e., a full specification of a moment. The Court
believes that this is well within standard English usage and is not
enough reason to invalidate the CFCJ.

Secondly, the specification of the player in the penalty is
unfortunate, but is, again, certainly no reason to consider the CFCJ
invalid (especially since the Court will be supplying the actual
penalty).

The third point is certainly true, but is of little point. The
original judge has determined that Zuriti'ili was committed; the fact
that most of the reasoning is devoted to showing only that it was
possible is hardly evidence against the judgement.

Fourthly, the Court believes that the proper interpretation of the
guideline in question ("Zuriti'ili is never committed simulataneously
with another crime") is that no person commits Zuriti'ili while in the
process of committing another crime. Surely the appealer would not
have us believe that Zuriti'ili is only committed when no one,
anywhere, is committing any other crimes.

Finally, it is possible for more than one person to commit a crime due
to a single event, thus making it possible for more than one act of
Zuriti'ili to be committed simultaneously. For example, consider CFCJs
142 and 144, which convicted /dev/joe and Vynd of Zuriti'ili for a
the actions of an Organization.

As the appealer's arguments are all attempts to prove the
impossibility of Zuriti'ili being committed, and no argument is
offered in favor of his own innocence, the Court sees no other reason
to question the original judge's decision.

The appealer is penalized 20 points.

Actual Penalty:

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of five or more lines.
A TRANSFERENCE of A$5 to Hubert.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Note on CFJs

I believe that I receive A$10 compensation for having been wrongly
imprisoned on CFJ 151.

However, I still don't get my 15 points back the Justices penalised me for
the first appeal.  That's another change to go on my ever-increasing
proposal queue.

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:56:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka :chess - Center

On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> Alfvaen, if you're still planning to get your pawn to the Center it would
> be necessary to remove Slakko's Tornado from there first - any ideas?
> 
I am calling a Public Health Emergency, naming Niccolo Flychuck as being
infected with snowgod's Disease for this obviously private message which
was sent to a public forum.

Count Tabula has to deal with this Hearing.
Valid responses are, of course:

"Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!"
and
"No, e, uh, meant to do that."

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:02:57 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: snowgod's hearing

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Alfvaen, if you're still planning to get your pawn to the Center it would
> > be necessary to remove Slakko's Tornado from there first - any ideas?
> > 
> I am calling a Public Health Emergency, naming Niccolo Flychuck as being
> infected with snowgod's Disease for this obviously private message which
> was sent to a public forum.

*Sigh* I am calling the required hearing.  Reply to vote; voting lasts 3
days.  Valid votes are below

hibert
Count Tabula

> 
> Count Tabula has to deal with this Hearing.
> Valid responses are, of course:
> 
> "Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!"
> and
> "No, e, uh, meant to do that."
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> -- 
> Duncan C. "" Richer aka
> Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
> Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
> Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer
> 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:23:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Can you find it in your hearts?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BA_01BD46AE.9AA65DD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I know that this post is off subject but it is something that is very =
important to me.  Last year,  Phil Ackley(aka Snowgod) was a proud =
sponsor.  Please help me make this year even better.

Thanks,
Crackfoo
Jerome Herrman   =20

I'm sure that most of you have heard of Big Brothers/Big Sisters.  It is =
a great organization, and they help so many children.  I have been a big =
supporter of BBBS for many years.  Every year, they hold a bowlathon.  I =
have been very successful in the past at raising a large amount of =
money.  Last year I raised almost $3000.  This money was due in large =
part to many people I have met on the internet.  I was very suprised at =
the response I got from my emails.  The time has come once again for the =
bowlathon and I am on the trail for sponsors.  As single parents, you =
all know how important it is for children to have parents.  Imagine how =
tough it is for children that don't have that parental support.  BBBS is =
very important in the lives of the children that don't have what our =
children have.  As a child, I certainly needed the love and support I =
received from this super organization.  If you can find it in your =
hearts to support this, and would be willing to sponsor me in the =
bowlathon, I would be very grateful.  If this is something you feel you =
can do, please email me the following information privately.......
=20
Real Name:
real address
real city, st, zip
real phone#
amount of pledge(10 cents per pin, or flat $ amount, $10 minimum)
=20
You DO NOT send any money to me.  You will receive an invoice from BBBS =
after I have bowled.  This is a tax deductible donation to a charitable =
cause.  I will not share your names or any other information with =
anyone.
=20
=20
Thank you,
=20
Jerome

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BA_01BD46AE.9AA65DD0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I know that this post is off subject =
but it is=20
something that is very important to me.&nbsp; Last year,&nbsp; Phil =
Ackley(aka=20
Snowgod) was a proud sponsor.&nbsp; Please help me make this year even=20
better.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Crackfoo</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Jerome Herrman&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I'm sure that most of you have heard =
of Big=20
Brothers/Big Sisters.&nbsp; It is a great organization, and they help so =
many=20
children.&nbsp; I have been a big supporter of BBBS for many =
years.&nbsp; Every=20
year, they hold a bowlathon.&nbsp; I have been very successful in the =
past at=20
raising a large amount of money.&nbsp; Last year I raised almost =
$3000.&nbsp;=20
This money was due in large part to many people I have met on the=20
internet.&nbsp; I was very suprised at the response I got from my =
emails.&nbsp;=20
The time has come once again for the bowlathon and I am on the trail for =

sponsors.&nbsp; As single parents, you all know how important it is for =
children=20
to have parents.&nbsp; Imagine how tough it is for children that don't =
have that=20
parental support.&nbsp; BBBS is very important in the lives of the =
children that=20
don't have what our children have.&nbsp; As a child, I certainly needed =
the love=20
and support I received from this super organization.&nbsp; If you can =
find it in=20
your hearts to support this, and would be willing to sponsor me in the=20
bowlathon, I would be very grateful.&nbsp; If this is something you feel =
you can=20
do, please email me the following information =
privately.......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Real Name:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>real address</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>real city, st, zip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>real phone#</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>amount of pledge(10 cents per pin, =
or flat $=20
amount, $10 minimum)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>You DO NOT send any money to =
me.&nbsp; You will=20
receive an invoice from BBBS after I have bowled.&nbsp; This is a tax =
deductible=20
donation to a charitable cause.&nbsp; I will not share your names or any =
other=20
information with anyone.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Thank you,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Jerome</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BA_01BD46AE.9AA65DD0--

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:08:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka :chess - Center

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Count Tabula has to deal with this Hearing.
> Valid responses are, of course:
> 
> "Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!"
> and
> "No, e, uh, meant to do that."

[ On the Niccolo Flychuck hearing... ]

No, e, uh, meant to do that.

- -Hubert

Mean people suck. Nice people swallow. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 16:22:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Supreme Court reform RFC

I am of the opinion that the Judgment Rules can be divided into four
general topics.  (1) Initial Judgment -- who does it and how;  (2)
Appealing a Judgment -- under what circumstances can it be done;  (3)
Appellate Judgment -- what happens to an appealed CFJ?;  (4) Miscellaneous
- -- currently, the Praetor is the major miscellany in our judgment system.
I believe that this division is fairly modular, in that each of the four
topics can be radically altered, yet require only minor modifications to
the other topics.

Conventional wisdom seems to indicate that (2) and (3) are the parts of
the Judgment system that are the most thoroughly broken.  This RFC
addresses primarily (3) by spreading out the workload of the Supreme
Court.  This should have the double effect of sparing two Justices from
the onslought of appealed CFJ's and giving the broad interpretive powers
of the Court to a wider segment of the population.  (2) still needs work,
and will probably receive some more attention in a future versin of this
RFC, but the problem of frivolous appeals should be less critical with
more people to Judge CFJ's.

Guy Fawkes

- ---

RFC

[I. Reorganization of the Supreme Court
Sets the groundwork for there being a larger, variable number of Justices,
as well as providing a contingency plan in case no eligible Justices exist
or if no eligible Justices want be a Justice ]

Amend Rule 416's (The Supreme Court) full text to the following :) -
delimited text.

:)
The Office of Justice has a variable number of Seats.  {{The Office of
Justice has two Seats.  A player who occupied a Seat in the Office of
Justice immediately before the most recent amendment to this Rule
continues to hold a seat in the Office of Justice.  If either or both of
these Seats were empty immediately before the most recent amendment to
this Rule, the empty seat(s) remain empty until filled.}}  A player
eligible to be a Justice may, as a public action, make themselves a
Justice.  Upon them doing so, they will either occupy a formerly empty
Seat in the office of Justice (should any exist), or a new Seat in the
Office of Justice shall be created and they shall occupy it (this happens
only in the case where no Seats in the Office of Justice were empty at the
time they made themselves Justice).  When a Justice resigns or is
otherwise removed from their Office, the seat they vacated is destroyed.
The previous sentence notwithstanding, no game events shall cause the
Office of Justice to have fewer than two seats.  The Justices are
collectively known as the Supreme Court.

Only those players eligible to be Praetor are eligible to be Justices,
except that a player holding a seat in the Office of Justice is always
eligible to hold that seat.  A player impeached from the Office of Justice
during the last 90 days is ineligible for the Office of Justice.

Should a Seat in the Office of Justice remain vacant for three days, or
should such a Seat be vacant for any length of time if there are no
players eligible to fill it, it is the privelege of the President to
appoint a willing player to fill that Office.  The appointee fills the
empty Justice seat, regardless of their eligibility stated elsewhere in
this Rule.  Within the first week of eir Justicehood, the Senate may, as
an organizational action, remove the appointee from office.  Players who
held the office of Justice for less than one week are not considered
former Justices for the pruposes of this or other Rules.

The Praetor or Acting Praetor shall be an Acting Justice whenever there is
a vacancy in the Supreme Court. 
:)

[II. Introducing the Supreme Cortex
Selecting two random Justices to judge an appeal seems somewhat haphazard
to me.  From my experience on the Supreme Court, one of the most enjoyable
things was the working relationship that developed between myself and
breadbox, the other Justice.  Also, there was never the "OK, how do you
want to do this?" phase when we first got assigned an appeal that seems to
be so common in randomly thrown-together groups.  (All those with ad-hoc
committee experience know what I mean).  I see this as a workable internal
structure to the Suprme Court. ]

Amend the third paragraph of Rule 500.2 "Entity Ownership" to read in
full, "If an entity is nontradeable or tradeable, then it is ownable.  At
any given time, each ownable entity is either owned by one or more named
entities or Somewhere Else (unowned).  If the Rule(s) defining an
ownable entity do not explicitly state that it may have multiple owners,
then it can have at most one owner."

Create a new Rule, entitled "The Supreme Cortex" and numbered 416.1, with
the following ;) - delimited text.

;)
A Supreme Cortex (hereafter Cortex, plural Cortices) is a named,
nontradeable entity. At any time it may have zero, one or two owners.  A
Cortex with two owers is Active.  A Cortex with one owner is Undermanned. 
A Cortex with zero owners is instantly destroyed, except if it is the only
one in existence. Such a Cortex is Vacant.  

Only Justices may own a Supreme Cortex, and no Justice may own more than
one Cortex.  A Justice who owns a Cortex is Grafted; one who does not is
Ungrafted.

If there are no Vacant or Undermanned Cortices, an Ungrafted Justice may
create a new Cortex as a public action, by specifying its name ("The
Supreme Court" or any name with the same primitive form is not a valid
name for a Supreme Cortex). The new Cortex is initially Undermanned, its
creator being its sole owner.  At any time, an Ungrafted Justice or Acting
Justice may, as a public action, become an owner of a Vacant or
Undermanned Cortex.  A player ceases to be an onwer of a Cortex if they
either publically give up their ownership of that Cortex, or cease to be a
Justice or Acting Justice. 

{{ Create a Supreme Cortex, named "The Entity Formerly Known as the
Supreme Court" (TEFKatSC for short).  All extant Justices are owners of
TEFKatSC.  All CFJ's that the Supreme Court is considering are assigned to
TEFKatSC. }}
;)

[That last bit should provide continuity through the Supreme Court
reorganization.]

[III. Appeal / Judgment Interface
The idea here is to create a Rule to determine which Supreme Cortex
decides a case while leaving the Rule that determines the conditions under
which appeal is possible relatively unchanged.  This isn't to say that
these conditions don't need changing, but that I'd like to see the new
Supreme Court in action before deciding what appeal structure would work
best for getting cases to the Court. ]

Create a new Rule, numbered 217.1 and entitled "Selecting a Cortex" with
the following :p - delimited text.

:p
Whenever the Rules call for the Supreme Court to consider a CFJ, the Clerk
of the Courts shall assign that CFJ to a Supreme Cortex.

E shall select a Supreme Cortex (hereafter Cortex) based on the following
guidelines.
1.  E shall assign the CFJ to the Active Cortex that is already
considering the fewest CFJ's.  If multiple Active Cortices are tied for
this distinction, e shall choose randomly among them.
2.  If there are no Active Cortices, e shall assign the CFJ to the
Undermanned Cortex that is already considering the fewest CFJ's.  If
multiple Undermanned Cortices are tied for this distinction, e shall
choose randomly among them.
3.  If the only Cortex in existence is Vacant, e shall assign the CFJ to
the Vacant Cortex. 

When a Cortex is destroyed, all CFJ's assigned to it are reassigned to
another Cortex as per the above guidelines.
:p

Amend the fourth paragraph of Rule 217 (Overturning Judgment) to read,
"The Supreme Court shall then decide the case and should return its
verdict within one week [Should we reinstitute the penalty in case they
don't?].  The unanimous verdict of the owners of the Supreme Cortex to
which the CFJ is assigned is the verdict of the Supreme Court."

Amend the last paragraph of Rule 417 (Justices Rock) to read, "When a CFJ
is assigned to the Supreme Cortex that a Justice or Acting Justice owns,
that Justice or Acting Justice may, as a public action, decline Judgment
on that CFJ.  In this case, an Acting Justice is selected to act as an
owner of that Supreme Cortex with respect to that CFJ only, in the
original Justice's or Acting Justice's stead; the procedure used to select
the Acting Justice is in this case the same as if the original Justice or
Acting Justice had gone on Vacation."

[IV.  Finishing Touches ]

Add the following text to the end of the seventh paragraph of Rule 217
(Overturning Judgment):

However, unless at least three Justices or half the Supreme Court,
rounding down, (whichever is lower) post a public message explicitly stating 
their support of the re-appeal within a week following the re-appeal, the
Supreme Court's most recent verdict is automatically upheld, and the CFJ
may not be appealed further.  

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #46
******************************