Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #85
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Saturday, April 4 1998        Volume 03 : Number 085

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 02:26:30 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: proposal retraction

Please retract Prop 2827.  It is being reworded slightly and resubmitted.

- --JT

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 04:02:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 17

Volume 1, Issue 17
April 4, 1998
This issue's slogan:
"The (Un)Official Ackanomic Newspaper of the C.U. Diplomacy Society"
In this issue:
1. Editorial
2. Apologies and Retractions.
3. Poll Question #5
4. More Ackanomic News
5. Special Report - Interview with a Checked Fabric
6. Meaningless Statistic of the Week #2
7. Party Chess Report
8. Sub-Game Summary
9. Advertisement		
 		
Editorial
After this week being restored to its usual voting-heavy self, Acka has
another transformation to go through this week. breadbox tweaked the
queue, ending a long period of frobbing, with the comment that the frob
did not have the desired effects. 

So, now that the frob has ended, a multiplicity of proposals has already
started appearing via the feisty little nomicbot at muppetlabs. A sudden
increase in the rate of retraction has also occurred, although this may
well be due to some serendipitous miscalculation on the part of a previous
rule rewriter.

I hope that some restraint will be shown, so that our freedom in a tweaked
queue need not be stamped on by an exhausted Promoter. Last time the queue
was unfrobbed a call for people to restrict themselves to 1 proposal per
day (on average) was made. If people who have lots of ideas ration them
out in this way (give or take a couple) then the proposal change rate will
be steady but not overwhelming. Let's keep it that way, for the sake of
the Promoter and to avoid bewildering the new arrivals :-)

An unusual reminder from the Editor: The Presidental Nominations will be
with us again next week, as my eight week term expires. When you look back
on the last eight weeks (or what fraction of them you have experienced),
you will hopefully realise that Acka has been stable. No severe crises
have threatened to dump the game in a hole and run off snickering, and a
trickle of players have joined and continued to keep the game interesting
and fun. In short, I would hope that, should I be on the ballot again this
time, you would remember the effectiveness of my Presidency, and vote me
in a second term. After all, I wouldn't be the first.

Now, the usual reminder from the Editor: Letters to the Ackan are always
welcome. We will publish contributors within reason, because our aim is to
provide Ackans with a comprehensive news and opinions service. This
includes opinions contradicting the paper, so feel free to criticise
editorial comments. 

If you want your opinions heard, or letters published, please send them to
[email-masked]. Send a stamped self-addressed email to the
address listed above, marked "Acka: Ackan" and we'll do our best to get
back to you.

Have another good Ackan week - banna willing we'll be back next week.
Slakko
Editor, The Infrequent Ackan 
 
Apologies and Retractions
The Ackan apologises for the relative lack of errors to criticise in last
issue. The new fact checker appears to be doing eir job so well that my
sub-editors live in fear, and have taken to wearing bullet-proof vests.
No, wait, that was the response to my get tough initiative. Oh well.
The Ackan heartily apologises for any damage or difficulties caused by
these errors and/or omissions.
 
Poll Question Results
Time here at the Ackan for another Poll Question - aimed to inform,
entertain and elicit fun responses. This week's question is:

5. The queue was tweaked this week. Did the queue frobbing affect your
proposal plans, and if so how?
(a) - No, my plans stayed the same.
(b) - Yes, I submitted less controversial proposals.
(c) - Yes, I submitted fewer modest proposals.
(d) - Yes, I just submitted fewer proposals in general.
Please send your responses to [email-masked] (or reply to this issue of
the paper on the reply electrons provided).

As is usual, a trinket, of guaranteed minimum value A$5, will be given to
one lucky respondent, picked at random with the unpatented Ackan Random
Bookpage modulo 2n procedure. So get those responses in - /dev/joe and
else...if know that it pays to respond.
 		
More Ackanomic News

Acka Treated to Rare Ceremony
This week, at the steps of Slakko's House (currently functioning as the
Presidential Palace, ready for UN Inspectors to arrive and check it out),
a very special Blue Cross Rank Ceremony was held. Alfvaen was the
beneficiary of the ceremony, giving up eir 3 Silver Stripes to receive a
second Gold stripe. E joined an elite group with this second Gold stripe,
containing 2 current players and one elder. 

It is extremely unlikely that such an event will occur again soon, given
that all other players need to increase their Blue Cross Ranks by more
than 25 to approach such a level. We are bound to see quite a few more
Silver Stripes being doled out before anyone is ready to ascend to the
level Alfvaen has just reached.

Hey, Ralphie Boy! New People Moving In!
Also this week there was a sudden influx of new Ackan residents. Three new
citizens have joined our happy camp, citizens JT, Koxvolio, and Joe Java.
We wish them well and hope they have a long and prosperous future. The
Presidential Palace was again in use for eir membership ceremonies, at
which each was given A$900, and the title deed to eir own individual plot
of land.

Land Boom Creates Crisis Fears
On the back of the influx of new players came an interesting trend: a
dramatic increase in the amount of land being purchased. While the mere
influx of players leads to a decrease in the common land described on the
Map of Ackanomia, Koxvolio started a rush by applying to grab another kaa
of land, adjacent to eir existing one. Other players followed suit,
including Hubert and Slakko, both Officers (and you would have thought
above this kind of thing). Will land prices be forced to rise, or will
common sense move in and stop such speculation? Only time will tell.

Financial Follies
The Stock Market received a welcome breath of fresh air this week, as the
activity index was unfrozen and set on a much broader footing. Most
experts saw this as a new dawn for Stock Market trading, seeing new
opportunities for arbitrage and speculation. Others moved quickly to point
out the inconsistencies and flaws in the new index, noting that
instability appears to be best for Acka's sake if the activity index is to
be any guide.

Meanwhile, the positivity index has edged higher this week on the back of
a 6 proposal streak. It will remain constant until at least Saturday, at
which point some moderate positivity gains are tipped to continue. The
Ackan Official Stock tip of the week is to buy to spread risk.

Mad Treasure Rush sees Trinket Prices Skyrocket
In a display of what could turn out to be almost no common sense, some
Ackans have been bidding on a trinket. They say the trinket holds the key
to the Curious Clock of Uesticlox, and finding where it is buried. Others
say it is just a bunch of hooey designed to elicit extra money. Whatever
it is, it is a cheap value trinket which is currently undergoing an
auction, and has reached over 700% of its initial value.

Caped Crusader Does a Paula Jones
In a shock move today, First Round Judge Guy Fawkes threw out the CFCJ
case against Slakko for alleged Blatant Disregard on a technicality. Given
the nature of the technicality, it is unlikely that an appeal will be
overturned in the Supreme Court, so Slakko has, for now, escaped the noose
of the Caped Crusader. We can only hope that the Caped Crusader is more
adept at catching the real criminals out there, and put our support firmly
behind the Caped Crusader's effort for truth, justice and the Ackanomic
way.
 		
Special Report - Interview with a Checked Fabric
The Ackan now provides its fourth in a (stunningly) ongoing series of
interviews with the great names of Ackanomic. This issue we talk with The
Gingham Wearer, formerly Boy Wonder and currently Clerk of the Courts.
Thanks to The Gingham Wearer for granting The Ackan an interview, despite
the no doubt huge calls from his own paper for one as well. 

IA: The Gingham Wearer, thank you for joining us. And I must compliment
you on your taste in clothes today.

TGW: My pleasure to be. And thank you. 

IA: While you are now well established as a member of the Ackan community,
it was not all that long ago you were a struggling newbie like many of
us.How did you cope with the bewildering displays of sheer harf that were
contained in Acka?

TGW: About four and a half months ago actually, although it doesn't seem
that long ago. Harf is something that I hold dear to my heart. My first
ever proposal was declared harfy, as was my first accepted proposal (Down
the River) and I've had a total of four harfy proposals accepted in total.
I'm now moving more towards the Malenkai/Alfvaen/Slakko style of proposals
that do more to correct what's already there and make little
modifications. The complexity of the ruleset was never to much of a
problem to me either for that matter, I seemed to take it in without too
much difficulty, perhaps because I lurked for a bit before getting fully
involved in the game. The one thing that I did have difficulties with, and
still do for that matter, is the massive amount of game custom that's
managed to build up over two years. Whenever I attempt a scam Malenkai,
/dev/joe, breadbox or someone like that always seems to say, "No, it won't
work. Exactly the same thing was attempted on April 14th by Ptang
1001001100sos [except they get eir name right] and was judged in CFJ 203
not to work." It can be quite depressing.

IA: You were the first Boy Wonder, a position that today lies
unfortunately vacant. At the time, the Caped Crusader was involved in evil
plotting. How much of this were you able to uncover and destroy?

TGW: I like to think that I conducted myself honourably in that position.
I believe I called a couple of CFCJs against players that the then Caped
Crusader had ignored during my time there. I also managed to change the
rules to prevent corruption by stopping the Boy Wonder judged CFCJ called
by the Caped Crusader, thinking nought of my quest for a bronze torch. It
must have been at that point that the Caped Crusader realised that e
couldn't rely on me to further eir evil plans. 

IA: Currently you hold the post of Clerk of the Courts. It is an important
responsibility - do you feel you are settling in to handling it well?

TGW: Certainly. As I believe I have said before I am a lit better at
performing email related jobs than I am at doing web based jobs. I know
HTML isn't rocket science but it does take some time to do and I don't
hold with these hot metal type programs preferring to do it all by hand.
That said though, I will be putting up a proper Clerk of the Courts page
over the Easter, and probably taking over the maintenance of the CFJ
archives from breadbox. Bizarrely enough, these past few days seem to have
seen a rush for submitting CFJs. The only real problem with this is my
being in a different time zone. If someone submits a CFJ at 8:00pm Acka
time, it's unlikely to get released until about 1:00pm the next day.

IA: Have you any planned ways to improve the efficiency of the Office of
Clerk of the Courts? Any rule changes which would simplify or streamline
the existing system?

TGW: I have one in the queue at the moment dealing with the ineligibility
list but there are no major changes that I can see coming in the near
future. The position has been around for such a long time that most if not
all of the bugs have been worked out. That said though, if I feel anything
needs doing then I will do it. 

IA: As CotC, you would obviously have been a very interested party in the
recent discussions over Supreme Court Reform. What are your personal
opinions of the outcome that was reached (the creation of the Cortices)?

TGW: The solution reached certainly isn't perfect but I don't really think
that any system could be. I largely kept out of the discussion of the
reform since I didn't have much to add to it. Anything which increases the
speed at which verdicts are returned must be a good thing. My two biggest
problems are slightly inter-related: firstly not enough people want to be
justices. There are plenty of people eligible but thus far the only cortex
is that consisting of breadbox and ThinMan. I really don't understand
this, Justice is a position to which I aspire but it looks like it's going
to be a long time before I get a shot at it, which is my second problem.
If I recall the rules correctly then a player who wouldn't be eligible as
the Praetor may only become a justice when there are fewer than two
Justices. This strikes me as slightly "elitist". It's a shame that the
rules are thus because Slakko has also shown some interest in becoming a
Justice and e isn't valid yet either. E won't have too long to wait before
e gets eir gold stripe however, but my best bet is currently looking to be
a bronze torch. If the "non-elite" could become justices at any time then
I believe we would already have had a new cortex formed, halfing the work
of the entity known as the supreme court. 

IA: What is your favourite Ackan rule?

TGW: That's a difficult one. I hold the rule "Down the River" quite dear
to me because it was my first proposal accepted, and I like my rule "Le
Grand Fromage" (apologies to CnH for butchering eir native tongue in my
original title of this, by the way) but I don't want to seem egotistical
so I'm going to select someone else's rule. I think the game of YORL is
really good (probably because I'm doing well at the moment) but for my
favourite rule I think I'm going to go for "Winning is inherently amusing
(or winning by palindrome)" as I believe it is called. This is one of the
harfy rules that does nothing that I don't believe even Malenkai wanted to
get rid of. Surely a stroke of genius. As for my least favourite Ackan
rule (I know you didn't ask this but it's no secret anyhow); it's the bit
of whatever rule it is that details anti-voting. Not really a rule, I
know, but I just wanted to stress it in case anyone forgets. 

IA: If you could be any other entity in the game, which one would you
select?

TGW: Whilst it could be interesting being a piece of brie or a Chartreuse
goose egg, I believe I'd be Malenkai. Who wouldn't want to be Malenkai?
Not only has e won the most cycles, e also has the highest blue cross, had
the most titles and the most respect of anyone in the game. 

IA: The Gingham Wearer, thank you for your time.

TGW: You're welcome. 
 		
Meaningless Statistic of the Week
The Meaningless Statistic this week used to be relatively meaningless.
However, ever since the big cheeses here decided to allow win by cheese
collection, the stat is no longer quite so meaningless. Yes, it's the
Harfy Proposal Acceptances.

The Harfy Proposal has been around for most of Acka's history. The first
proposal to pass designated Harfy was Proposal 1237, authored by Mr.
Lunatic Fringe (who at that time was using the name snowgod). Proposal
1237, "Fulfilling Campaign Promises", which defined Public Gatherings and
created the Frobozz Magic Beverage Company to provide the drinks (at a
cost) for such public meetings. An auspicious start to the list of
successful Harfy proposals.

In all, Acka has seen 33 Harfy proposals pass, from 1237 up to the most
recent, Illusion's proposal 2785 to set up donations for a Light Source
Expedition. This was Illusion's first harfy proposal, putting em on level
pegging with a number of past and present players.

These players, with a single harfy acceptance, are: Robert Sevin, Chaos,
IdiotBoy (welcome back, hope you add to your total), fnord, Narf,
two-star, Alfvaen, CV1701, Rex Mundi, Slakko, Hubert and Illusion.
Some players, by contrast, have scaled the harfy heights to 2, 3, and in
one rare case 4 harfy acceptances. On two we have Malenkai, Mr. Lunatic
Fringe, Voting Gnome, and breadbox. On 3 there are Calvin N Hobbes, Guy
Fawkes, and The Gingham Wearer (one of the most concentrated creators of
harf in the history of the game). And the winner of the statistic of the
week this week is Vynd, who has authored an astonishing four harfy
proposals.

Vynd's harfy concepts were proposals 1853, 2010, 2109 and 2529. They
respectively (a) allowed the cycle to be won by the End of the World, (b)
created the Literature List, (c) created the Ackanomicon, and (d) brought
into being the Office of Caped Crusader. All in all, four very worthy,
very harfy proposals. Congratulations Vynd on being The Infrequent Ackan
Statmeister for this instance of Meaningless Statistic of the Week.
Interestingly, since cheeses came in, no single player has had two harfy
proposals accepted. Given three are required to earn one of the five
cheese, we could be waiting quite a while for a cheese related win.
This has been Number 2 in an occasional series of Meaningless Statistics
of the Week. We hope you enjoyed it - feel free to send feedback to
[email-masked].
 		
Party Chess Report

More weight gain this week as the Party Chess board takes on a decidedly
full look. Slakko's previous 103 record has now been extended to 108,
while The Gingham Wearer sits on 103, having moved almost into first
place. However, this battle at the top is sure to have a casualty soon, as
the disadvantage of being limited to single Atomic Plays allows players
with two-digit Weights more room to manoevre.

Hubert was confirmed properly in the post of Razor Boomerangs swinger, and
in eir first move in the post proceeded to finally put the Boomerang King
on the board. For the first time in the game, there are 7 Swingers with
non-zero weights. With all these pieces on the board, it is a wonder that
it doesn't collapse!

The last week has also seen a spate of checkings - possible feints and
threats which could lead to the distribution of more Stabber's Knives,
essential to any Party Chess win. No fewer than four checks have occurred
in the last week, and we are beginning to wonder what kind of instability
the game is heading for.

This Monday is a non-Swingpoint one, but moves now could easily be a
Swinger's last chance to affect eir weight before the next Swingpoint
distribution. So keep an eye out for the prize - with upwards of 27
Swingpoints on offer in a little over a week, the game is bound to hot up.
 
Sub Game Stuff
Every week - every subgame going.

Abstract Crescent
Abstract Crescent Game 1 is still churning away, with 7 rounds now
completed. If the current round does not result in an immediate game win,
then IdiotBoy will become the first player to join a running Abstract
Crescent game, at the end of round 8. The strategic game has developed
further, to the point where judging general strategies is growing quite
difficult.

Scores for winning rounds are edging back up, but not to the extreme level
that they were before. People tend to be spreading out their choice of
rounds to win on, resulting in lower scores for those who do win.
The Gingham Wearer's attempts to create ludicrously high winning numbers
having failed, e successfully ducked down to steal one round and get on
the board with a score of 7. Meanwhile, in that round, /dev/joe decided to
perform some interesting "signalling" by referencing a song with his
number, "867-5309". Such a stunt could well be worth a FairPlay award, but
any such award will have to wait until next calendar week at the earliest.

If you're not currently playing Abstract Crescent, and you want to be,
then as Umpire I'm still accepting submissions from people who want to
play. I'll be inserting them into the rolling congruences as soon as
possible after I receive them. So come and play Abstract Crescent! You'll
be pleasantly surprised.

Fictionary
A new game should be starting soon, with 8 players, just like the old one.
Alfvaen is not playing this time, so the rest of us have at least a
half-decent chance of winning (hopefully). So get your brain in gear, and
start thinking up those kooky definitions, because Fictionary is a game
that separates the mildly creative from the truly deceitful.

Viruses
The Viruses battle goes on and on, still without a clear favourite for the
winner's post. 29 rounds in, and the two players leading the Viruspoints
are both well back in the Viruscounts. TGW, still the Viruspoint leader,
remains well out of the Viruscount lead, on 15 infected cells. A useful
climb over the last couple of rounds has seen em start to have some
impact, but it will need to be consolidated with further gains to have any
chance of turning into Viruspoints.

Meanwhile, Slakko's spot in the doghouse continues. On 10 infected cells,
eir cell count looks fairly pitiful. However, with some open space,
anything is possible, so don't count anyone out of this Viruses game.
In the middle of the Viruscounts are /dev/joe and two-star. /dev/joe's 6
Viruspoints are still within striking range of the win, but eir Viruscount
is currently significantly down on the leader, making any hope of a quick
return to Viruspoint territory look a bit dodgy. two-star, by contrast,
has but a single Viruspoint. Can we see him emerging as the compromise
candidate, with strategy moving em to the top while the others battle for
the real supremacy and a continued stream of Viruspoints? While it seems
unlikely, I can't put anything past this game. 

At the top we have else...if and breadbox, with else...if having scooped
the Viruspoints for the last couple of rounds, a few cells ahead of
breadbox. They are both low on the Viruspoint ladder, though, so any win
from either of these players could be seen well in advance, and possibly
countered by an alliance of the remaining players. However the game
progresses, there's still a lot of life in it yet, so keep watching.

Word Un-Association 
Hubert's good position in Word Un-Association finally translated into a
win this week. Game 1 finished with Hubert squeaking out a 1 point win
over Slakko, albeit from a situation where e had the game wrapped up.
/dev/joe finished an almost-as-close third on 13 points.

Almost immediately the win was confirmed, Hubert announced that e was
going to referee Game 2, and asked for players to put their names forward.
With the game due to start in the very very near future, and at least
seven players ready to make the links, this game looks to be even more
cut-throat than the first one. With game set at 35 points, but 6 points on
offer for an unlinked uh? word, this game should be long yet exciting.
Keep track through the Ackan's currently unique weekly summaries. 

YORL
The Lunatic Finger has returned! Albeit in reference only, and in rather
bad rhyme and haiku at that, but The Gingham Wearer has finally been the
one to write the Finger into the story again. Sam/Romeo is well on the way
to finding the rest of the amulet of banna, but surely a story such as
this would require more time to complete than TGW has cards. At least if
it is to be finished adequately.

Meantime, a change in the guard around the bar. two-star left and came
back, leaving one more card suddenly in the deck, but A$20 more in the
ante pot. Attila the Pun also joined us, finally taking the empty bench
and restoring the game to its full eight player state.
Also a change in the rules for this game is in the wind. There is the
chance that Ales could result in FairPlay awards being doled out, putting
the game on an equal (if not slightly superior) footing with the other
games. Will this lead to cheesier, or conversely, harfier play? Wait and
see.
 
Advertisements
The Ackan is still looking for more interviews. If you've already
responded to our earlier queries but have not yet received your
preliminary questions sheet, don't worry, we'll be getting in contact
shortly to know how you're getting on.

On the other hand, if you have yet to respond to the Ackan call for
interviews, and have held a public office in Acka for at least one month
continuously at any stage in Acka's history, then the staff of the
Infrequent Ackan would like to hear from you. Just email us at
[email-masked] with the keywords "Acka: Ackan" and say you would like to
do an interview. That's all. If you are accepted (which, let's face it, is
still pretty likely at this stage) then someone from the Ackan will be
around to contact you shortly. 

An additional advertisement, from the Campaign to Re-Elect Slakko:
EIGHT MORE WEEKS! 
EIGHT MORE WEEKS!
Vote Slakko in the next Presidental Election. E didn't screw things up
this term - and he won't do it next term either.

The Infrequent Ackan, first to you with Ackan news.
Copyright  Duncan Richer writing under the pseudonym of "Slakko", and Tom
Walmsley as "The Gingham Wearer", 4th April 1998.
Check us out on the web, at
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/infrequent.html 

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 04:27:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeaching Alfvaen

> I vote YES IMPEACH HIM! as it may be amusing...

Heck, I suppose I vote against this impeachment.

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 04:27:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE or TRUE, I don't know)

I received these two messages from Slakko this morning and am not really sure
what should happen now. It is my suspicion, that, unfortunate though it is,
the first verdict will have to stand. Rule 213 (Delivering Judgement) is very
vague on this matter. If anyone has strong feelings either way then submit a
CFJ on it, otherwise I'll do it myself. It looks as if we have a thread split
here.

TGW..

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: The Gingham Wearer <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE)
> Date: 04 April 1998 09:30
> 
> 
> 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 (declined)
> Third Judge: Slakko: (selected April 3, 1998 20:52)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> 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.
> 
> Third Judge's Reasoning:
>   There are two separate questions to be answered in determining this CFJ.
> Firstly, to what does the text "Beldin's Pants" in "Beldin's Pants may
> only be amended as described by the Praetor" refer, the Garment or the
> Rule.  Secondly, if it is the Rule being referred to, then does the text
> allow Alfvaen to make the amendment?
> 
>   Prior to the most recent amendment of Rule 940, the text which is now in
> question read "Beldin's Pants may only be removed as described by the
> Praetor."  At this time the customary interpretation was that this
> referred to the garment - that interpretation being based on the previous
> sentence being "Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially Somewhere Else."
> 
>   The most recent amendment of the rule saw "removed" replaced by
> "amended".  Can this change of a single word affect the meaning of other
> words?  To say no to this question would be to contradict game custom
> which determines that we interpret the rules so as to get a "reasonable"
> interpretation.  If a single word change made the old interpretation of
> some words unreasonable, then their interpretation may well change.
> 
>   There is no objective, direct rule-based method for determining which
> Beldin's Pants is being referred to in this rule, so game custom will
> prevail.  Existing custom dictates that the context in Rule 940, where the
> first sentence defines Beldin's Pants to be a garment, and the second
> sentence then describes when "Beldin's Pants" can be amended, indicates
> that the two instances of "Beldin's Pants" are referring to the same
> thing, i.e. the Garment.
> 
>   Therefore Alfvaen did not have the power to amend R940, and thus the
> second question is moot, and my judgement is FALSE.
> 
>   In addition, consider the actual text of the message sent:
> >In this message I describe how Beldin's Pants may be amended, according
> >to Rule 940.
> >
> >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.
> 
> Game custom tells us what "Beldin's Pants" means when it is in Rule 940.
> However, as this CFJ had not been judged, it was not generally known what
> "Beldin's Pants" in Rule 940 would have referred to, the Garment or the
> Rule.  The amount of public discussion on this issue illustrates this.
> Therefore, the first sentence of this message is ambiguous, as it does not
> specify _which_ Beldin's Pants is being amended.  Therefore the attempt to
> amend something fails due to being insufficiently specified.  This also
> leads me to a judgement of FALSE.
> 
> I judge FALSE.
> 

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: The Gingham Wearer <[email-masked]>
> Subject: MORE URGENT: Acka: CFJ 555 (TRUE)
> Date: 04 April 1998 09:36
> 
> PLEASE IGNORE THE OTHER VERDICT - I MADE A MISTAKE AND GAVE A RESULT NOT
> IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES.  BY RULE 215, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT A
> JUDGEMENT, BUT THIS ONE IS. 
> 
> 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
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> 
> 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 (declined)
> Third Judge: Slakko: (selected April 3, 1998 20:52)
> Judgement: TRUE
> 
> 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.
> 
> Third Judge's Reasoning:
>   There are two separate questions to be answered in determining this CFJ.
> Firstly, to what does the text "Beldin's Pants" in "Beldin's Pants may
> only be amended as described by the Praetor" refer, the Garment or the
> Rule.  Secondly, if it is the Rule being referred to, then does the text
> allow Alfvaen to make the amendment?
> 
>   Prior to the most recent amendment of Rule 940, the text which is now in
> question read "Beldin's Pants may only be removed as described by the
> Praetor."  At this time the customary interpretation was that this
> referred to the garment - that interpretation being based on the previous
> sentence being "Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially Somewhere Else."
> 
>   The most recent amendment of the rule saw "removed" replaced by
> "amended".  Can this change of a single word affect the meaning of other
> words?  To say no to this question would be to contradict game custom
> which determines that we interpret the rules so as to get a "reasonable"
> interpretation.  If a single word change made the old interpretation of
> some words unreasonable, then their interpretation may well change.
> 
>   There is no objective, direct rule-based method for determining which
> Beldin's Pants is being referred to in this rule, so game custom will
> prevail.  Existing custom dictates that the context in Rule 940, where the
> first sentence defines Beldin's Pants to be a garment, and the second
> sentence then describes when "Beldin's Pants" can be amended, indicates
> that the two instances of "Beldin's Pants" are referring to the same
> thing, i.e. the Garment.
> 
>   Therefore Alfvaen did not have the power to amend R940, and thus the
> second question is moot, and my judgement is TRUE.
> 
>   In addition, consider the actual text of the message sent:
> >In this message I describe how Beldin's Pants may be amended, according
> >to Rule 940.
> >
> >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.
> 
> Game custom tells us what "Beldin's Pants" means when it is in Rule 940.
> However, as this CFJ had not been judged, it was not generally known what
> "Beldin's Pants" in Rule 940 would have referred to, the Garment or the
> Rule.  The amount of public discussion on this issue illustrates this.
> Therefore, the first sentence of this message is ambiguous, as it does not
> specify _which_ Beldin's Pants is being amended.  Therefore the attempt to
> amend something fails due to being insufficiently specified.  This also
> leads me to a judgement of TRUE.
> 
> I judge TRUE.
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 04:48:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE or TRUE, I don't know)

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I received these two messages from Slakko this morning and am not really sure
> what should happen now. It is my suspicion, that, unfortunate though it is,
> the first verdict will have to stand. Rule 213 (Delivering Judgement) is very
> vague on this matter. If anyone has strong feelings either way then submit a
> CFJ on it, otherwise I'll do it myself. It looks as if we have a thread split
> here.

Rule 213 says that I must post my judgement to you.  
I declare that the second of the statements, in order of the timestamp on
my sending of them, is my judgement.  Therefore the second of the
statements is the one you should distribute.  The first thing, which looks
remarkably like a judgement, was a mistake that I made.  I do not consider
it to be my judgement - as my judgement is TRUE.

Yours,
Slakko

> > From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> > To: The Gingham Wearer <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE)
> > Date: 04 April 1998 09:30
> > 
> ----------
> > From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> > To: The Gingham Wearer <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: MORE URGENT: Acka: CFJ 555 (TRUE)
> > Date: 04 April 1998 09:36
> > 
> > PLEASE IGNORE THE OTHER VERDICT - I MADE A MISTAKE AND GAVE A RESULT NOT
> > IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES.  BY RULE 215, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT A
> > JUDGEMENT, BUT THIS ONE IS. 
> > 
> > I judge TRUE.

- -- 
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: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 05:01:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE or TRUE, I don't know)

> Rule 213 says that I must post my judgement to you.  
> I declare that the second of the statements, in order of the timestamp on
> my sending of them, is my judgement.  Therefore the second of the
> statements is the one you should distribute.  The first thing, which looks
> remarkably like a judgement, was a mistake that I made.  I do not consider
> it to be my judgement - as my judgement is TRUE.

I'm not sure that we can do that. If we could then how would we ever know
whether someone had delivered judgement? It is a shame that you made a
mistake but I don't think we can just ignore the problem. As I said, if you
feel strongly about this then send a CFJ on it.

TGW, CotC.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 05:21:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE or TRUE, I don't know)

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > Rule 213 says that I must post my judgement to you.  
> > I declare that the second of the statements, in order of the timestamp on
> > my sending of them, is my judgement.  Therefore the second of the
> > statements is the one you should distribute.  The first thing, which looks
> > remarkably like a judgement, was a mistake that I made.  I do not consider
> > it to be my judgement - as my judgement is TRUE.
> 
> I'm not sure that we can do that. If we could then how would we ever know
> whether someone had delivered judgement? It is a shame that you made a
> mistake but I don't think we can just ignore the problem. As I said, if you
> feel strongly about this then send a CFJ on it.

Here's another argument.  My first judgement is in direct contradiction of
Rule 373 - Public Actions, and therefore cannot actually be a judgement by
Rule 215.  (The interpretation it gives is that because the statement is
ambiguous, it did happen - a direct contradiction of Rule 373).  
Rule 215 says judgements must accord with the rules - that first FALSE
judgement does not accord with the rules and hence is not actually a
judgement.

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: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 06:30:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Language of Ackanomic.Re: Acka: Proposal 2811

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Ian K. wrote:
> 
> > Bah bah da bah.
> > 
> > Has anyone ever posted Ackanomic messages to this list that are not in
> > English?
> 
> I'm not sure.  I do know that snowgod once proposed that all Ackanomic
> business be conducted in binary.
> 
>                                    - Vynd
> 
> [email-masked]

For the record, there are Hebrew words in the ruleset.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 06:50:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

I disagree with this reasoning.
Nowhere does R1009 say that entities which a Party is no allowed to own
become unowned or destroyed, this is neither explicit nor implicit in the
rules. Hence there is no real conflict between R1009 and R500 and 500.2,
and precedence only kicks in when there is a conflict.
Additionaly, the distinction the judge attempt make between permissible
and possible is an RL distinction, not an acka distinction. The acka
distinction IIRC, is that actions which are impermissible fail. By the
same token, I argue that the language that claims that Parties may not
other types of entite is, is sufficient to make such entities no longer
owned by said Organizations ( as for bugs in the proposal, I thought that
Organizations would transfer such entities to their members duringthe
voting period on that proposal. It was just a thought). 

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #85
******************************