Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #83
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Friday, April 3 1998         Volume 03 : Number 083

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:33:21 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: two-who?

I bid $60
Sheesh..
(for the Manual to the Curious Clock ....)

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:38:23 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal retraction

Please consider Proposal 2815 retracted as of this moment.

Thank you to the various people whom I've corresponded with privately
about this proposal.  I didn't feel it would be such a big deal, but hey,
no biggie :)

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:41:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

Alfvaen wrote:
[Guy Fawkes wrote:]
>> I am authoring an Impeachment Paper against Alfvaen, with intent to remove
>> him from the Office of Praetor.
>
>> E is now Acting Praetor, and may not exercise the priveleges of the
>> Office.
>
>Damn.  I knew I should've said "Speaker" instead.  :-)
>
>Of course, nothing says that amending Rule 940 is a _privilege_ of the
>Praetor's office...

I think it highly likely that the courts would find it so, should you
choose to press the issue, unless they found that it was neither duty
nor privilege.  In either case you would be out of luck (in the latter
case because you are not currently Praetor, the fact that you are acting
Praetor notwithstanding).

Good work, Guy.

I should add, by the way, that I am currently inclined towards the
interpretation that /dev/joe advanced in his CFJ on the matter, and that
in fact the same interpretation occured to me independantly.  If the
matter should come before my Cortex, I will, of course, research the
matter more fully and rely on breadbox' insight to come to a final
conclusion.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 01:14:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Alexandre Owen Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: two-who?

> I am creating a trinket worth 10 A$ called the Owner's Manual to the
> Curious Clock of Uesticlox, with the description:
> "It is a three inch by five inch pamphlet with a bold sans-serif letters
> in an unfamiliar alphabet on the cover. The pages inside are yellowing,
> and quite disheveled, as if they had been caught in a very strong wind.
> 
> They say that it may be of use in retrieving the curious clock if it is
> lost."

Of course, they also say you shouldn't believe everything *they* say.

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 02:55:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Thierry Joffrain wrote:

> My right honorable friend, Niccolo Flychuck,
> 
> > I object to this.
> 
> Let's see why...
> 
> > My name has been mentioned is a few real-world publication, but so far
> > they were all published in Hebrew.
> 
> Cool. Mine too. Not Hebrew, but French. And Gaeliccome to think of it.
> I also believe I have my name in a German textbook, but I could never
> verify that.
> 
> Did they include Ackanomic? And what does language have to do with it?
Whether those specific publication included Ackanomic is not the point. I
might publich something next week, in Hebrew, that does.

> 
> > Regardless of the fact that I've got my name of exhibition cataloguesin
> > English, and I may have an English language publication soon, I think this
> > rule is culturally (or linguistically) discriminating.
> 
> Sorry, but you are wrong. I challenge you to find in that proposal
> something which says the publication has to be in English. I am somewhat
> puzzled why you would make such a grand appeal to emotionality (it's
> cultural discrimination!!) _without_ backing your statement (not
> argument) in *any way* whatsoever.

I am puzzled that you choose to wave away my statement and using the
time-honoroed technique of refering to only to portions of them, even
though you quoted them. I left open the possibility that the
discrimination may be linguistic and not cultural.

 > 
> Trying to imagine what tickled you so, I am guessing you are objecting
> to the fact that the statement must be sent to the speaker for
> acknowledgement, and that the speaker might not be able to read that
> language? So what? It does not say that the speaker cannot get someone
> with that expertise to verify it, his job is just to acknowledge it. Who
> cares how he/she verifies it.

So you are saying that the rule's working depends on the Speaker's ability
to get translators, and experts in various languages in which players
might publish. That's good enough reason to object to the rule. it makes
it impractical, and in practice it discriminates against languages which
are unavailable to the Speaker and eir battery of experts.

I'll give an you an example here. Suppose there is a job where you need to
fill out an application form. You can choose to fill it out in any
language you like, however, it turns out, that the people hiring can only
read language X. Is that not linguistically discriminating?
We have the same situation here.

 > 
> Perhaps you are saying that certain characters cannot be submited via
> email. 
I am saying nothing of the kind, and I also happen to be somewhat of an
authority on this matter.

> 
> If I have missed something, I am truly sorry for it. However, the least
> you could have done was point your readers to the specifics which led
> you to claim "cultural discrimination".
> 
> Someone who knows what cultural discrimination is,

Someone who also knows what cultural discrimination is, and who also knows
that it comes in many forms.

Niccolo Flychuck

> CnH
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 02:58:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2815

I am quite impartial to most of the rule. The only part I find
objectionable is restricting one's use of gender specific pronouns. We've
a long tradition here that all such pronouns are genderless.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, JT Traub wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> >I object to the restriction on the usage of gender pronouns. While I feel
> >quite comfortable with spivak  genderless pronouns, other players may not
> >be. Then again, this could cut down on BWG...
> 
> Objection noted.  I don't feel however that the restriction is particularly
> onerous since it only applies to public messages which speak about another
> player.  Proposals and rules don't care (yet).  As it's stated, it would
> have almost no current game effect, and the voting body could decide how
> much effect it will ever have.. I do have some idea that I want to try out
> that are based on it, but which do want the concept of gender in order to.
> 
> If you can suggest a modification that would make you more comfortable with
> the rule, I'll gladly consider it though.
> 
> - --JT
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 03:05:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 554 (else...if)

Now that I look at the pointers below, I think Alfvaen might be right.
(where's the embarassed emoticon when you need it?)
Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> else...if has been selected.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 554 - April 2, 1998
> Subject: Disbanding
> Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 1, 1998, 23:17)
> Judge: else...if (selected April 2, 1998, 16:43)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It is impossible for an Organization to disband.
> 
> Alfvaen's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 1003 states that "The rules may call for the disbandment of an
> Organization."  However, there is no place where the Rules call for
> the disbandment of an Organization.  Specifically, it does not seem
> to be specified that an Organization can disband as a public action,
> nor that it disbands when it has no members.  Admittedly, this is from
> a cursory grep for "disband" in the Rules, so it may be expressed
> another way that I missed(although I looked through Rule 1003 fairly
> thoroughly, I think).
> 
> I note particularly that VSO's are unable to disband.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 03:35:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811

Bah bah da bah.

Has anyone ever posted Ackanomic messages to this list that are not in
English?

Would we have to accept them if they were (if, for instance, someone
started making public and game-essential statements in Hebrew)?

Would it be too much to ask that people submitting publications in other
languages must 
	a) Highlight the work Ackanomic in their language (in case it
	   looks different and unidentifiable to English-speakers)
	b) Provide a tramslation to the Speaker of the relevant page?

Would this resolve this matter?

Koxvolio 

(P.S. I'm Norwegian/Italian but wouldn't dream of writing in either of
those languages to a public and English-speaking newsgroup - I would
expect to be CFJed For Being Annoying).

> > > I object to this.
> > 
> > Let's see why...
> > 
> > > My name has been mentioned is a few real-world publication, but so far
> > > they were all published in Hebrew.
> > 
> > Cool. Mine too. Not Hebrew, but French. And Gaeliccome to think of it.
> > I also believe I have my name in a German textbook, but I could never
> > verify that.
> > 
> > Did they include Ackanomic? And what does language have to do with it?
> Whether those specific publication included Ackanomic is not the point. I
> might publich something next week, in Hebrew, that does.
> 
> > 
> > > Regardless of the fact that I've got my name of exhibition cataloguesin
> > > English, and I may have an English language publication soon, I think this
> > > rule is culturally (or linguistically) discriminating.
> > 
> > Sorry, but you are wrong. I challenge you to find in that proposal
> > something which says the publication has to be in English. I am somewhat
> > puzzled why you would make such a grand appeal to emotionality (it's
> > cultural discrimination!!) _without_ backing your statement (not
> > argument) in *any way* whatsoever.
> 
> I am puzzled that you choose to wave away my statement and using the
> time-honoroed technique of refering to only to portions of them, even
> though you quoted them. I left open the possibility that the
> discrimination may be linguistic and not cultural.
> 
>  > 
> > Trying to imagine what tickled you so, I am guessing you are objecting
> > to the fact that the statement must be sent to the speaker for
> > acknowledgement, and that the speaker might not be able to read that
> > language? So what? It does not say that the speaker cannot get someone
> > with that expertise to verify it, his job is just to acknowledge it. Who
> > cares how he/she verifies it.
> 
> So you are saying that the rule's working depends on the Speaker's ability
> to get translators, and experts in various languages in which players
> might publish. That's good enough reason to object to the rule. it makes
> it impractical, and in practice it discriminates against languages which
> are unavailable to the Speaker and eir battery of experts.
> 
> I'll give an you an example here. Suppose there is a job where you need to
> fill out an application form. You can choose to fill it out in any
> language you like, however, it turns out, that the people hiring can only
> read language X. Is that not linguistically discriminating?
> We have the same situation here.
> 
> 
> 
>  > 
> > Perhaps you are saying that certain characters cannot be submited via
> > email. 
> I am saying nothing of the kind, and I also happen to be somewhat of an
> authority on this matter.
> 
> > 
> > If I have missed something, I am truly sorry for it. However, the least
> > you could have done was point your readers to the specifics which led
> > you to claim "cultural discrimination".
> > 
> > Someone who knows what cultural discrimination is,
> 
> Someone who also knows what cultural discrimination is, and who also knows
> that it comes in many forms.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> > CnH
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 04:41:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > E is now Acting Praetor, and may not exercise the priveleges of the
> > Office.
> 
> Of course, nothing says that amending Rule 940 is a _privilege_ of the
> Praetor's office...

No, but if you're not Praetor anymore, it quite effectively stops you from
doing so.  I must say this seems a rather drastic approach on GF's part to
me.  I didn't really expect this to succeed, especially after four Cortex
eligibles disapproved of it, but I'm not sure that Impeachment is in
order; I was under the impression that it was a way to punish a player for
not fulfilling the Duties of eir Office, not to prevent em from achieving
a long-sought-after Win, scam Win though it may have been.

Sorry, Alfvaen.  I tried. :-)

I play Bob Seger's "Against the Wind" on the ASS; unfortunately this fails
because it's in a Moment of Silence (no relation to 4'33").  But I tried.

- -Hubert

What happens if you get scared half to death twice? 

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 08:37:23 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

rhymes-with-Q-Bert wrote:
>> > E is now Acting Praetor, and may not exercise the priveleges of the
>> > Office.
>> 
>> Of course, nothing says that amending Rule 940 is a _privilege_ of the
>> Praetor's office...
>
>No, but if you're not Praetor anymore, it quite effectively stops you from
>doing so.  I must say this seems a rather drastic approach on GF's part to
>me.  I didn't really expect this to succeed, especially after four Cortex
>eligibles disapproved of it, but I'm not sure that Impeachment is in
>order; I was under the impression that it was a way to punish a player for
>not fulfilling the Duties of eir Office, not to prevent em from achieving
>a long-sought-after Win, scam Win though it may have been.

I think you are missing some of the subtleties here.  1) If "amend[ing]
Beldin's Pants" can be construed as a duty of the office of Praetor, then
an acting Praetor (such as Alfvaen is now) could perform it, notwithstanding
the fact that he is not Praetor.  2) I don't think that GF is trying to
actually remove Alfvaen from office -- the point is just to force him out
of "full" and into "acting" capacity in that role.

Impeachment is a tool to use when an officer must be forced out against his
will.  I agree that this is not such a situation, but that just means that
I'm not voting for the IP.  I don't object to GF _filing_ it, however,
especially because of (2) above.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

> Beldin's Pants may be amended by Beldin's Tailor as described by Rule 939,
> by the reader of the page "The Secret" from the Ackanomicon as described
> by Rule 910, by the Praetor, and by any player who owns a Cheez-Whiz and
> three cheeses.  Beldin's Pants may also be amended by Proposal, according
> to Rule 104, and by State of Crisis Resolution Document, according to Rule
> 362.  It may not be amended by Senate Resolution or Vulcan Action.
> {{[ Just to be safe... :-) ]}}

What about CSRs? Regardless of your (temporary) removal from Praetor,
wouldn't this cause this to fail?

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 555 (Attila the Pun)

Rex Mundi has declined, Attila the Pun has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 555 - April 2, 1998
Subject: Beldin's Scam
Initiator: /dev/joe (sent April 2, 1998, 00:33)
Judge: Rex Mundi (declined)
Second Judge: Attila the Pun (selected April 3, 1998, 10:00)
Judgement: 

Statement:
  Alfvaen's attempted amendment of R940 on April 1, 1998 did not succeed.

Reasoning:
  Ignoring the issue as to whether the words "Beldin's Pants" refer to the
rule or the garment, the sentence in question does not empower anybody to
amend Beldin's Pants anyway.

  The rule states "Beldin's Pants may only be amended as described by the
Praetor."  The word "only" in this sentence is very important; it makes
this sentence a *restrictive* one, rather than an *empowering* one which
it would be without the word "only".  Since Rule 101 prohibits rule changes
in ways other than the rules describe, Alfvaen may not amend rule 940.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 552 (TRUE)

JT has judged this TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 552 - April 2, 1998
Subject: Whamiol
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 1, 1998, 23:05)
Judge: JT (selected April 2, 1998, 16:43)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Very Small Organization known as Shell#10 owns a Whamiol.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Political Parties cannot own Gadgets, and neither can Societies, but
VSO's don't seem to be either.  So the Rules don't limit what they
can possess, but since they can't trade anything, the point is almost
moot.  Except that I can't call an Auction Them Entities auction on
the Whamiol if it's still owned...

Judge's Reasoning:
   From reading the rules, it seems clear to me that there is no restriction
on VSO's owning items of any sort.  Since by rule 101, anything not
prohibited
is permitted, I can only agree with the statement.  I am starting from the 
assumption that the whamiol in question was aquired by Shell#10 in accord
with the rules at that time.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 157 (INVALID)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 147 (March 31)
Subject: Gumball
Initiator: K 2 (sent March 30, 1998, 23:53)
Judge: Illusion (declined)
Second Judge: Guy Fawkes
Judgement: INVALID

Statement:
Slakko committed the Crime of Blatant Disregard on 26th of March 1998.

Initiator's Reasoning:
On the 26th of March Slakko was seen attempting to chew The Gumball:

"Today is Thursday, the 26th day of March, the fourth Thursday in the
month, and I am chewing the Gumball.  It has a hint of a Blue Lagoon in
the taste this week - probably a continuation of the cocktail party I
went to last night."

The venerable rule 903 is emphatic on when the moist chewyness of the
gumball may be sampled:
"the gumball"[sic] ... "can be chewed only on" ... "the second and
fourth Wednesdays and the first and third Thursdays of each calendar
month."

The heinous criminal not only puckered up and commenced chewing on the
_fouth_ Thursday, but went as far as to flaunt the fact in the faces of
all law abiding Ackan citizens.

A vile criminal act if ever there was one, but of what type? A player is
guilty of Blatant Disregard according to rule 701, if e "breaks" the
rules. In this instance if a mistimed mastication is not breaking, what
is? (unless of course 'breaking' is a "Weasel Word" ); Clearly a case of
Blatant Disregard for the cherished rules of Acka.

Suggested Penalty:
One four line apology to The Gumball, once a day, for a week and an
injunction on further chewings for a month.

Judge's Reasoning:
Rule 710 regulate's the submission of CFCJ's.  In particular, its says:

> 5) It shall include a "suggested penalty" section, which is a
> recommended penalty to be imposed on Player X, should a verdict of TRUE
> be reached.  More than one class of penalty may be recommended. The
> valid classes of penalties are: 
> [penalties ensue:]

An injuction against further chewing is not among the valid suggested
penalties (although it probably should be), and so this is not a valid
CFCJ.  The Judge finds this CFCJ INVALID.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:16:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 556 (K 2)

K 2  has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 556 - April 3, 1998
Subject: Do notes nest?
Initiator: Attila the Pun (sent April 2, 1998, 20:34)
Judge: K 2 (selected April 3, 1998, 10:11)
Judgement: 

Statement:
If a rule consisting entirely of the following text were to exist,
Attila the Pun would not necessarily achieve a Winning Condition:

"If any player is a grapefruit, that player shall recieve five
points.

[[This text is meaningless; or is it?]  Attila the Pun shall
achieve a Winning Condition; this sentence shall than be
deleted from this rule.]"

Initiator's Reasoning:
Rule 340, which defines the way in which brackets are used,
states the following:

"...
IV. Text delimited by square brackets [e.g. this] is a note. Notes have
no semantic meaning.
..."

The text "[This text is meaningless; or is it?]  Attila the Pun shall
achieve a Winning Condition; this sentence shall than be deleted from
this rule." in the above hypothetical rule is delimited by square
brackets.  The fact that the text itself contains square brackets is
irrelevant; nowhere does the rule state that notes stop at the first
set of square brackets encountered.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:31:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811

I retract P2811.

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:37:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2811

I'm not going to get into an emotional argument about who is
discrinating how, I just want to point out what discrimination is (at
last for the US supreme court and the laws in the EU). NF has been kind
enough to send a private message and that's where this will continue.
Friends of the court are welcome.   :)

I liked the "...you didn't consider that I said it _could_ be linguistic
discrimination, not cultural...", when my statement said that we were
*not* restricting it to one _language_. If that ain't linguistic...   :)

>I'll give an you an example here. Suppose there is a job where you need to
>fill out an application form. You can choose to fill it out in any
>language you like, however, it turns out, that the people hiring can only
>read language X. Is that not linguistically discriminating?

No. Discrimination would be refusing to consider other languages. What
you are discribing, although a valid objection, is not discrimination
but impractiblity (to a degree).

If they make an promise (by saying it can be filled in any language) and
then do not consider an application they cannot read, then they are at
fault (equivalent to a breach of contract). However, they do say
language, not dialect, which means we can assume there are more than one
speaker of that language in the world. Hence they can get it translated,
which is their implied promise.

In the same way, there is no discrimination of any kind by the proposal.
The problem is that if we were going to be up-tight about it, yes, it
might become impractical. Someone might send a publication in a tribal
language which is spoken by only a handful of persons. For a strange
reason, I think they would still have to write "Ackanomic" Ackanomic.
Like "Coca Cola" is written the same way the world over. Otherwise it
ain't Coke. As for the person's name, if they were able to find
Ackanomic in such a publication... way to go, that deserves the points.

CnH

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:53:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: two-who?

> I bid $60
> Sheesh..
> (for the Manual to the Curious Clock ....)

A$67.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Prefab Sprout:Couldn't Bear To Be Special
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
This town ain't big enough for both of us. Damn land surveyors.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:57:45 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

> What about CSRs? Regardless of your (temporary) removal from Praetor,
> wouldn't this cause this to fail?

No, because I believe that Rule 939 already disqualifies them.  I did
check that the first time...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Prefab Sprout:Couldn't Bear To Be Special
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 10:00:49 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants III

> I think you are missing some of the subtleties here.  1) If "amend[ing]
> Beldin's Pants" can be construed as a duty of the office of Praetor, then
> an acting Praetor (such as Alfvaen is now) could perform it, notwithstanding
> the fact that he is not Praetor.  2) I don't think that GF is trying to
> actually remove Alfvaen from office -- the point is just to force him out
> of "full" and into "acting" capacity in that role.

I fully understand, and I did expect some opposition.  And I didn't think it
would work, but I thought it was worth a try.

> Impeachment is a tool to use when an officer must be forced out against his
> will.  I agree that this is not such a situation, but that just means that
> I'm not voting for the IP.  I don't object to GF _filing_ it, however,
> especially because of (2) above.

I notice that nobody has voted on it one way or the other yet, either.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Prefab Sprout:Couldn't Bear To Be Special
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
you ceruleans are *so* insensitive.  --josh geller

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 10:19:35 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: two-who?

>> I bid $60
>> Sheesh..
>> (for the Manual to the Curious Clock ....)
>
>A$67.
A$70

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 10:40:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

The Gingham Wearer has judged this TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 553 - April 2, 1998
Subject: Crumbling Vulcans
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 1, 1998, 23:05)
Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected April 2, 1998, 16:43)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Political Party known as Vulcan owns a Scroll of Crumble.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Rule 1009 states: "A Political Party may own and Trade A$, Trinkets, and
Organizational Powers. Theu[sic] may not own any other type of Entity."

I have no idea whether Rule 500.2 gives this precedence enough to take
place, but it might.  If this is the case, then I believe that any
"other types of Entity" formerly own by Organizations with Big Tents
are now unowned and in the Treasury.  So in that case this CFJ should be
ruled FALSE.

Judge's Reasoning:
First off I'm going to assume that "theu" is an unambiguous mis-spelling
(shudder) of "they". It is the only word simillar to theu that I can think of
that makes sense (gramatical and otherwise).

I don't think that anyone doubts that a scroll of crumble is "another type of
entity", nor do I believe there is any doubt that Vulcan owned one before the
passage of proposal 2789.That would therefore leave us with a situation
whereby it appears that they own one but the rules dictate that they may not
own one. May indicates that it is not allowed rather than it is not possible.
For example, if a child were to ask "Can I go to the park?" then her mother
would be forced to answer yes if she were being 100% honest, presuming the
child was not disabled, knew her way to the park, etc because the girl would
be physically capable of going to the park. However, if the question had been
"May, I go to the park?" then the mother could well have answered no, for
example because it was too late and the girl was not allowed to go to the
park at this time.

The question is, since the rules say it is not allowed does this equate to
the same thing as being impossible? That is, if the rules say that you're not
allowed to do something does it become impossible to do it, since the game is
governed by the rules? Game custom would seem to suggest this, although I am
not entirely happy about it. Rule 255 states:

"The one exception is that a player who has been on vacation less than 2 days
may not take themselves off vacation."

CFCJ 146 determined that in attempting to remove emself from vacation before
three days had passed Karma had comitted the crime that later became known as
attempting the impossible (I find it interesting that in eir reasoning on
CFCJ 146 Malenkai went off on a big tangent that turned out to be largely
irrelevant much as I have done here).

That would therefore suggest that it is impossible for Vulcan to own a scroll
of crumble so I believe I should judge this FALSE. However, that does not
answer the question of what happens to the scroll. Rule 500.2 states:

"Entities may be transferred from one owner to another only through methods
specified by the Rules."

Does this also mean that entities may only go from being owned to unowned as
specified by the rules? It would be a reasonable assumption. If I were to
post a public message saying "I am making the secret lab owned by shell #10
become unowned" then I can't for a minute imagine this suceeding. Since the
rules have not specified any manner in which the scroll of crumble should
have become unowned (to my knowledge) then I don't believe that this is a
viable alternative either. What does that leave us with? The most reasonable
alternative I can think of is that the scroll is destroyed. Let's see what
the rules have to say about that:

"An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as specified
by the Rules." (from rule 500).

Again no rule has demanded the destruction of the scroll so this doesn't seem
viable either.

We now have three conflicting rules (or possibly just two, the example from
rule 500.2 could be considered a subset of manipulation of entities from rule
500) one of which must be true (it must either have been transferred
somewhere else (normal definition, not game definition), destroyed, or
remained where it was). None of the rules in question claim to take
precedence over or defer to any of the other rules in question so once again
we must fall back on rule 102:

"If two or more rules other than this one conflict about a particular issue,
and if the rules other than this one (and not restricted to the conflicting
rules) specify a single, coherent, unambiguous method for resolving the
conflict then that method is applied to determine which rule or rules take
precedence with regard to that issue. Otherwise, wherever the rules conflict
on a particular issue, the rule with the lowest number among those rules
which conflict on that issue shall guide play with regard to that issue."

Whether this is considered as two cinflicting rules or three the result is
the same, the scroll is not destroyed, or transferred since both rules in the
five hundreds take precedence over rules in the thousands. Therefore, the bit
from rule 1009 doesn't take effect. That means that Vulcan does own a Scroll
of Crumble, and so I must judge this TRUE.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 11:04:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 557 (K 2)

K 2 has been selected again.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 557 - April 3, 1998
Subject: Antxina
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 3, 1998, 09:03)
Judge: K 2 (selected April 3, 1998, 09:55)
Judgement: 

Statement:
Alfvaen owns a unique entity called Antxina.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:
This is a long shot, because a)I would've had to have been able(as Praetor)
to describe how to amend the Rule Beldin's Pants, b)either my first attempt
to describe it succeeded(CFJ 555 covers this one), or c)my attempt to amend
the Rule after my second description succeeded despite my only being Acting
Praetor at the time.  Or something like that.  Frankly, I don't think so
either, but I've been surprised before.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 11:20:29 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: two-who?

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, JT Traub wrote:

> >> I bid $60
> >> Sheesh..
> >> (for the Manual to the Curious Clock ....)
> >
> >A$67.
> A$70

This should have been A$74 from me since the A$70 isn't a legal bid as per
the rules.   apologies for the erroneous bid.

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:05:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bron, the Zetorch

It is with great pleasure that I am able to preside over this award
ceremony.  It is not all that long ago that Guy Fawkes returned to grace
Acka with eir perspective.  Since then, e has judged a number of CFJs,
enough, in fact, to bring eir Bronze Torch qualifying total to 16.

So, on behalf of Acka, I hereby award Guy Fawkes with a Bronze Torch.

Yours,
Slakko
loving this ceremony-style bit
- -- 
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: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:14:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bron, the Zetorch

> It is with great pleasure that I am able to preside over this award
> ceremony.  It is not all that long ago that Guy Fawkes returned to grace
> Acka with eir perspective.  Since then, e has judged a number of CFJs,
> enough, in fact, to bring eir Bronze Torch qualifying total to 16.
> 
> So, on behalf of Acka, I hereby award Guy Fawkes with a Bronze Torch.

I'm not sure you're right here actually (although you may be). Both the CFJs
e has judged since e returned can still be appealed, so I think e'll have to
wait another couple of days.

TGW.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:24:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bron, the Zetorch

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > It is with great pleasure that I am able to preside over this award
> > ceremony.  It is not all that long ago that Guy Fawkes returned to grace
> > Acka with eir perspective.  Since then, e has judged a number of CFJs,
> > enough, in fact, to bring eir Bronze Torch qualifying total to 16.
> > 
> > So, on behalf of Acka, I hereby award Guy Fawkes with a Bronze Torch.
> 
> I'm not sure you're right here actually (although you may be). Both the CFJs
> e has judged since e returned can still be appealed, so I think e'll have to
> wait another couple of days.

From Rule 907:

Once a player has delivered a total of 15 verdicts on CFJs, CFCJs, or as
part of (or all of) the Supreme Court, they are eligible for a Bronze
Torch.  Verdicts overturned do not count towards this total, nor do any
verdicts other than TRUE or FALSE.

So the invalid doesn't count, but, even though the other one could be
overturned, because it hasn't been overturned as yet it counts.
The Torch stands.

- -- 
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: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:30:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Only the Good

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Red Barn has to date received 11 nominations for the Hall of Elders,
> well in excess of half the number of active players(17, right now),
> so e is inducted.  Well done!  This also means you can stop now.  :-)

<drumroll, please...>

Ladies, Gentlebeings, and Other Ackan Citizens!

For the first time in recorded Ackanomic history, an Esoteric Song is
playing on the Ackanomic Sound System!

Red Barn's unexpected death on Tuesday and subsequent raising to Eldership
at 9:30 Acka time this morning triggered the ASS's most current song, "One
by One (Only the Good Die Young)" by Queen.

Let us mourn the passing of such a fine and upstanding Ackan citizen as 
Red Barn, even as we toast eir memory.  For the next three days, that
Elder Red Barn may be properly honored, let all players bow their heads in
remembrance, and none leave eir house or voluntarily change eir Location.

And congratulations, Red Barn, if you're still listening.

(BTW, I completely missed this announcement on the passage of Proposal
2800 which inducted Balsamic Dragon.  I had reasons for eir induction not
counting as a valid Trigger, but upon a closer perusal of the Rules, I
found that there was no legal basis for said reasons.  Please feel free to
Impeach me or vote against me in the Election for DeeJay that is even now
(ahem, Count Tabula) taking place.)

- -Hubert

2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:49:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Treasure found

Rather sooner than I had hoped my most recent treasure (one automatic
sculpture) has been found by Rex Mundi.

The treasure map was thus:

This treasure shall be found next time someone is inducted into the hall of
elders by the method currently defined in the rules this treasure shall be
found by the middle player to support the nomination including the player who
initially made the nomination. If there is no one middle player then it shall
be the second of the two. If this would be The Gingham Wearer then the
treasure shall be found by the player who supported the nomination
immediately before The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 18:22:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 554 (TRUE)

else...if has judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 554 - April 2, 1998
Subject: Disbanding
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 1, 1998, 23:17)
Judge: else...if (selected April 2, 1998, 16:43)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

It is impossible for an Organization to disband.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Rule 1003 states that "The rules may call for the disbandment of an
Organization."  However, there is no place where the Rules call for
the disbandment of an Organization.  Specifically, it does not seem
to be specified that an Organization can disband as a public action,
nor that it disbands when it has no members.  Admittedly, this is from
a cursory grep for "disband" in the Rules, so it may be expressed
another way that I missed(although I looked through Rule 1003 fairly
thoroughly, I think).

I note particularly that VSO's are unable to disband.

Juge's Reasoning:
	I see no flaws with Alvaen's reasoning.  Maybe I missed it, but I
didn't see any way to disband.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #83
******************************