Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #86
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Saturday, April 4 1998        Volume 03 : Number 086

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 07:10:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web-Harfer Announcement

I have now put a Parade Archive up - accessible from the Compressed Front
Page and the Entity Descriptions Page.  It includes all 7 Proposal parade
descriptions, and CnH's Silver Moon winning Birthday description.

I have also trawled through the email archives, and completed the
information in the Officers Archive about the times of office of all the
Senators and Speakers.  The only offices still in existence whose
information I do not have completed are the Clerk of the Court and the
Justices.  If anyone has any information which they believe could help
(after looking at the current state of my information on the page) could
you please email me.

Yours,
Slakko
Trying to get the past right before working on the future.
- -- 
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 11:04:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[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). 

As far as the distinction between permissible and possible goes, that was the
conclusion that I reached. It never hurts to put too much detail in a CFJ
reasoning. If parties no longer own such entities then what happens to them?
The only possibilities that I can see is that they are transferred to someone
or something else or they cease to exist. No rule has called for this to
happen, and so there is conflict.

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 11:38:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeal

In the CFJ 555 FALSE thread, I am appealing my own judgement.  I hope that
the Cortex will be lenient with me as a judge and agree with my arguments
in the TRUE "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 11:43:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> In the CFJ 555 FALSE thread, I am appealing my own judgement.  I hope that
> the Cortex will be lenient with me as a judge and agree with my arguments
> in the TRUE "judgement".

For clarity, this is the "CFJ 555 judged FALSE" thread, not the CFJ 555 is
false thread.  The current thread split is:

CFJ 555 judged FALSE by Slakko
CFJ 555 judged TRUE by Slakko

I am only appealing my own judgement if that judgement is FALSE.

- -- 
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 12:28:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

> As far as the distinction between permissible and possible goes, that was the
> conclusion that I reached. It never hurts to put too much detail in a CFJ
> reasoning. If parties no longer own such entities then what happens to them?
> The only possibilities that I can see is that they are transferred to someone
> or something else or they cease to exist. No rule has called for this to
> happen, and so there is conflict.

But the case is not that ownership is being transferred, but that entities
are becoming unowned, and thus going into the Treasury.  When Churches became
Cults(before Cults were given explicit existence by the Rules), their
possessions reverted to the Treasury.  I think this is what should happen
with Orgs that owned Gadgets.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Wallflowers:One Headlight
Current Book--Jo Clayton:Quester's Endgame
As long as I have you, I can endure all the troubles you inevitably bring.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 12:29:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Heisenberg.

Oh, the humanity!

The threads are split!  The waveforms aren't collapsing!

IB
sombody get that boy a cat

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 15:44:36 -0500 (EST)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeaching Alfvaen

I vote against the impeachment.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 16:24:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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.

No, there is no thread split.

Slakko delivered what you (TGW) understood to be his judgement. Since
you have already distributed it, it has become the official verdict,
period - unless Slakko wishes to argue that he did not actually submit
that judgement to you and that you have actually committed
Malpractice.

It is certainly not within the purview of the CotC's job to review
judge's submissions and decide that some are not actually "in
accordance with the rules" and therefore should not be distributed. I
cannot emphasize that too strongly.

This has happened before (see CFJ 153, in the CFJ archive or the
history page), and ThinMan solved the problem in the only way
possible - by appealing his own judgement. I applaud Slakko for not
waiting to do likewise.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 16:28:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE or TRUE, I don't know)

> Slakko delivered what you (TGW) understood to be his
> judgement. Since you have already distributed it, it has become the
> official verdict, period - unless Slakko wishes to argue that he did
> not actually submit that judgement to you and that you have actually
> committed Malpractice.

In my rush to get this message out before someone submitted an
unneccesary CFJ on the matter, I failed to notice that I was confused
on a few points of fact.

In particular, it is not clear whether the CotC has in fact
distributed the verdict or not. Since his post on the matter is rather
ambiguous, and contains two entirely different judgements.

Note that if the CFJ decision is not yet distributed, then Slakko
cannot yet appeal it.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 16:38:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

> But the case is not that ownership is being transferred, but that entities
> are becoming unowned, and thus going into the Treasury.  When Churches
became
> Cults(before Cults were given explicit existence by the Rules), their
> possessions reverted to the Treasury.  I think this is what should happen
> with Orgs that owned Gadgets.

I don't really agree here but the rest of you know much more game-custom than
I do so you're probably right. Although I will point out that rule 500 (IIRC)
says that entities may only be manipulated as described in the rules. If
making something unowned isn't manipulation then I don't know what is. As a
bit of an experiment I make A$100 currently belonging to Alfvaen become
unowned. As a further experiment I make A$10000 that is currently unowned
become owned by me. I then create a trinket called "This can't work, can it?"
valued at A$5000. I believe I may be in the museum at the moment, in which
case I donate "This can't work, can it?" to the museum. If I'm not there at
the moment then I'll just have to wait 'till we've all stopped mourning the
passing of Red Barn.

TGW.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 16:43:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE)

Once again, one of the slumbering (yeah, right!) giants has provided me with
what appears to be the correct path to take. Cheers to breadbox, appologies
especially to Slakko, and also to anyone else who this may havve
inconvenienced.

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.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 16:46:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 555 (FALSE)

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Once again, one of the slumbering (yeah, right!) giants has provided me with
> what appears to be the correct path to take. Cheers to breadbox, appologies
> especially to Slakko, and also to anyone else who this may havve
> inconvenienced.

I am appealing this verdict.  I made a mistake, I hope the Cortex will go
easy on me.
> 
> 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

- -- 
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 22:34:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Flotation Device

I forget which I'm supposed to distribute this week, the Raft or the
Oars.  (I'm temporarily unable to check the entitylog...)  In any case,
whichever it is, Calvin N Hobbes has found it.

- --
- --Alfvaen (Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Song--Edie Brickell & The New Bohemians:Love Like We Do
Current Book--Sheri S. Tepper:Necromancer Nine
The road's risen up to meet me, and it won't go back down!

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #86
******************************