Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #88
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Sunday, April 5 1998         Volume 03 : Number 088

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 16:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: actions

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > I am filing an IP against Alfvaen, with intent to remove him from the
> > Office of Praetor.
> 
> I vote against this impeachment.
> 
> TGW.
> 

Whereas I am voting in favor of it.

IB

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 16:53:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 160 (two-star)

two-star has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 160 (April 05)
Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer  (sent April 05, 1998, 16:47)
Judge: two-star (selected April 05, 1998, 16:48)
Judgement: 

Statement:
Guy Fawkes committed the crime of Zuriti'ili on April 05, 1998 AD.

Initiator's reasoning:
I believe that by posting the bellow quoted message titled "Acka: Actions"
Guy Fawkes committed Zuriti'ili.

"I am performing the following actions:

I am retracting my IP against Alfvaen.

I am filing an IP against Alfvaen, with intent to remove him from the
Office of Praetor.

I am buying 90 stocks.

GF"

Let us look at the guidelines 1 by 1.

At least once in the history of Ackanomic, a player has committed Zuriti'ili.

Is true. I did not that long ago.

Zuriti'ili may be related to one or more entities that can be owned. 

*May* be. Doesn't have to be.

Any action involving a prime number of named ownable entities is not
Zuriti'ili. 

This doesn't. Impeachment papers and messages to mailing lists are not
ownable.

Zuriti'ili is never committed simultaneously with another Crime. 

No other crime is being committed.

The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given point in
time, is a prime number. 

See CFCJ 155 for why this doesn't matter.

The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least once. 

Is irrelevant. This being judged TRUE would have no effect on this guideline.

No one who is not a member of an organization can commit Zuriti'ili. 

Guy is a member of the Church of Righteous loophold surfers or whatever they
are called.

Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the speaker if he publicly announces the
number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date and
time. 

Guy is not the Speaker.

It is possible for an act of Zuriti'ili to involve anti-voting in a certain
pattern, but that pattern is unknown. 

Is possible. Doesn't have to. Again see CFCJ 155.

Most instances on Zuriti'ili go undetected.

Doesn't matter and is irrelevant to the case in hand.

So GF *could* have committed Zuriti'ili, but did e? Of course e did.
Exploiting the rules in a manner verging on being annoying in an attempt to
deny our most righteous Praetor eir true privileges. It must be Zuriti'ili.

Suggested Penalty:
4 days in gaol to stop em trying to impeach Alfvaen again.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 16:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > I never claimed that they become unowned, or destroyed. I argue that the
> > rule makes them impossible to be owned by a Party, and therefore they are
> > no longer owned.
> 
> If they are no longer owned by the Party, then *what happens to them*? If
> they don't exist anywhere then they have been destroyed, if they exist
> somewhere else then they have been transferred. These are the only three
> possibilities, and none of them are allowed by the rules. Therefore, we have
> to look to precedence.

You are making an implicit assumption that I disagree with. You are
assuming that a rule which conferred a new status must follow a procedure
described elswhere in the rules, th discussion around the nomic<->enttiy
questio, and the related CFJ dealt with much the same problem, except that
then, there indeed was no rule which stated that other nomics were
entities, and I attempted to appeal to Game Custom, which the court had
itnerpreted differently than I did. I fully agree that entities can only
be manipulated by the rules, and I cite a rule that manipulates them in
the way that I believe they have been manipualted R1009, to make them no
longer owned by the Parties which previously owned them. Manipulation of
entities by the rules is not forbidden by R500

Niccolo Flychuck

  TGW. > 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 550 (Hubert)

Didn't I decline this one?
I thought I did.

If you can't find such a message, then I'd like to be taken off the CFJ
ineligbility list please.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck is deadbeat. The Praetor is also the initiator so this goes
> to Hubert.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 550 - March 28, 1998
> Subject: Bits of Edam
> Initiator: Alfvaen (sent March 28, 1998, 02:14)
> Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (deadbeat)
> Second Judge: Hubert (selected April 5, 1998, 07:18)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Serving as an Acting Officer counts for the purposes of determining whether
> one has received an edam.
> 
> Alfvaen's Reasoning:
> 
> I'm pretty sure about this, but I'd rather clear it up now just in case.
> (I just went through and recounted, and realized I'd skipped the Acting
> Officers before.)
> 
> Rule 611 states:
> 
>  A player receives an edam if e has held five offices (not including
>  Capital Offices) since the adoption of this rule, or the most recent
>  destruction of a cheese of this type belonging to this player, or the
>  players most recent impeachment; whichever is the most recent.
> 
> The question is whether an Acting Officer is "holding" an office.  I
> believe that Rule 401 reads this way, since it refers with fair consistency
> to "holding a seat in an Acting capacity".
> 
> However, Section (vi)b) says "When a Player's Term expires, he is no longer
> considered to be holding the Office.  The player performs the Office in an
> 'Acting' role until the Seat is filled..."
> 
> So the Rules are slightly ambiguous on the matter.  (Whichever way it is
> decided, the CSRR should clear up Rule401 so it's all one way or the
> other, methinks...)
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:14:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 553 (TRUE)

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > > I never claimed that they become unowned, or destroyed. I argue that the
> > > rule makes them impossible to be owned by a Party, and therefore they are
> > > no longer owned.
> > 
> > If they are no longer owned by the Party, then *what happens to them*? If
> > they don't exist anywhere then they have been destroyed, if they exist
> > somewhere else then they have been transferred. These are the only three
> > possibilities, and none of them are allowed by the rules. Therefore, we have
> > to look to precedence.
> 
> You are making an implicit assumption that I disagree with. You are
> assuming that a rule which conferred a new status must follow a procedure
> described elswhere in the rules, th discussion around the nomic<->enttiy
> questio, and the related CFJ dealt with much the same problem, except that
> then, there indeed was no rule which stated that other nomics were
> entities, and I attempted to appeal to Game Custom, which the court had
> itnerpreted differently than I did. I fully agree that entities can only
> be manipulated by the rules, and I cite a rule that manipulates them in
> the way that I believe they have been manipualted R1009, to make them no
> longer owned by the Parties which previously owned them. Manipulation of
> entities by the rules is not forbidden by R500

Rule 1009 says that the org is not allowed to own the entities in
question.  Are they now unowned or destroyed?  Rule 1009 has nothing to
say on the matter.  It therefore has not specified what has happened to
the entities.  But Rule 500 says that only manipulations _specified_ by
the Rules occur.  Neither the entity's becoming unowned or its destruction
(whichever happened, assuming either did) was specified - and so I would
argue that neither took place.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resorting To Bribery

> If on any prime date after the 10th of the month there exists an Active
> Cortex besides The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court, then a
> random owner of one such Cortex shall find this Treasure.

I will gladly join a cortex.  If there one awaiting completion (did Guy's
ever get filled?) I will join it or else I will start another.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:26:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resorting To Bribery

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > If on any prime date after the 10th of the month there exists an Active
> > Cortex besides The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court, then a
> > random owner of one such Cortex shall find this Treasure.
> 
> I will gladly join a cortex.  If there one awaiting completion (did Guy's
> ever get filled?) I will join it or else I will start another.

Did Guy ever start one, or just express a desire to find someone else to
do it with?

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:27:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resorting To Bribery

I never started one -- I was awaiting a partner.

I am naming myself a Justice.
I am creating a Cortex, named "Tweedledee and Tweedledum".

GF

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > If on any prime date after the 10th of the month there exists an Active
> > Cortex besides The Entity Formerly Known as the Supreme Court, then a
> > random owner of one such Cortex shall find this Treasure.
> 
> I will gladly join a cortex.  If there one awaiting completion (did Guy's
> ever get filled?) I will join it or else I will start another.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 550 (Hubert)

> Didn't I decline this one?
> I thought I did.

I can't find any such message, although that does not necessarily mean that
none exists. If anyone else recalls such a message then tell me.

> If you can't find such a message, then I'd like to be taken off the CFJ
> ineligbility list please.

Consider yourself removed. It'll be up on the website tomorrow.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resorting To Bribery

> I never started one -- I was awaiting a partner.
> 
> I am naming myself a Justice.
> I am creating a Cortex, named "Tweedledee and Tweedledum".
> 
> GF

I am naming myself a Justice (is that really how it's supposed to work?)

I am joining the Cortex "Tweedledee and Tweedledum".

/dev/joe
"Who are you calling dumb?  I'm dee, and he's dum!" :-)

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 17:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 160

Slakko is correct. I was confused because e'sjust removed emself from the CFJ
ineligibility list. Illusion is the real judge.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 160 (April 05)
Subject: Zuriti'ili
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer  (sent April 05, 1998, 16:47)
Judge: Illusion (selected April 05, 1998, 17:50)
Judgement: 

Statement:
Guy Fawkes committed the crime of Zuriti'ili on April 05, 1998 AD.

Initiator's reasoning:
I believe that by posting the bellow quoted message titled "Acka: Actions"
Guy Fawkes committed Zuriti'ili.

"I am performing the following actions:

I am retracting my IP against Alfvaen.

I am filing an IP against Alfvaen, with intent to remove him from the
Office of Praetor.

I am buying 90 stocks.

GF"

Let us look at the guidelines 1 by 1.

At least once in the history of Ackanomic, a player has committed Zuriti'ili.

Is true. I did not that long ago.

Zuriti'ili may be related to one or more entities that can be owned. 

*May* be. Doesn't have to be.

Any action involving a prime number of named ownable entities is not
Zuriti'ili. 

This doesn't. Impeachment papers and messages to mailing lists are not
ownable.

Zuriti'ili is never committed simultaneously with another Crime. 

No other crime is being committed.

The number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed, at any given point in
time, is a prime number. 

See CFCJ 155 for why this doesn't matter.

The Ackaphysicist has committed, or will commit, this crime at least once. 

Is irrelevant. This being judged TRUE would have no effect on this guideline.

No one who is not a member of an organization can commit Zuriti'ili. 

Guy is a member of the Church of Righteous loophold surfers or whatever they
are called.

Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the speaker if he publicly announces the
number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date and
time. 

Guy is not the Speaker.

It is possible for an act of Zuriti'ili to involve anti-voting in a certain
pattern, but that pattern is unknown. 

Is possible. Doesn't have to. Again see CFCJ 155.

Most instances on Zuriti'ili go undetected.

Doesn't matter and is irrelevant to the case in hand.

So GF *could* have committed Zuriti'ili, but did e? Of course e did.
Exploiting the rules in a manner verging on being annoying in an attempt to
deny our most righteous Praetor eir true privileges. It must be Zuriti'ili.

Suggested Penalty:
4 days in gaol to stop em trying to impeach Alfvaen again.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 18:31:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Private Collection

Having been meaning to do so for a while, I now offer to put certain objects
in the Private Collection Room of the Museum for display, in accord with
section VIII of R850 . These are objects of some considerable value, both
financial and sentimental.

The first half is the so-called "snowgod collection". A tribute to the
innovative genius of that true artist. It consists of 3 objects.

        The Crown of Ultimate Failure
This was created many moons ago by snowgod after a discussion of who had the
most passed proposals and the most rejected proposals. This gift from
snowgod is to be owned by the player with the most failed, with instructions
to pass it on to who ever deserves it.

        The I Remember Oom-Pah-Pah!
In another discussion, roughly a year ago, concerning the olden days, I
happened to mention that something reminded me of Oom-Pah-Pah, a political
party that had been formed to make Ackanomic a monarchy. Always making
obscure references himself, snowgod, created this trinket in rememberance.

        The Old Man's Marbles
Once again, this is a trinket by snowgod. As times past and the original
pool of players kept shrinking, the older players became more and more
silent, more and more out of touch with the rule set. This led me to comment
that I was losing my marbles, prompting snowgod to give them back to me in
this original way.

The second part is the "magic rings collection" and consists of 4 objects.

        The Vilya, Nenya and  Narya the Great
These are three majiks. They are the three powerful Elven rings of the
Elven-kings. They have been lost from Middle-Earth, but this has been
Ackanomic's gain.

        The One
This is the One Ring, not destroyed but forever without its dark power,
secure in Ackanomic for safe keeping.

It is the duty of the Curator (the Financier) to approve (or reject) these
submissions to the Private Collection Room.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 19:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Various judicial things (was: Resorting To Bribery)

> I am naming myself a Justice (is that really how it's supposed to work?)
> 
> I am joining the Cortex "Tweedledee and Tweedledum".

Finally! We have two cortexes. Having just looked over the rules for this I
have realised I probably ought to have specified which cortex any appealed
judgements went to. Any appeals since the passage of Guy Fawkes' Cortex
proposal have gone to the Cortex comprising breadbox and ThinMan.

Also (since I only need to judge another 6 CFJs to get a bronze torch) I am
taking possession of the purple robe of justice paying A$227 as I do so.

TGW.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 19:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 559 (JT)

JT has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 559 - April 5, 1998
Subject: Winning
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent April 5, 1998, 17:50)
Judge: JT (selected April 5, 1998, 17:51)
Judgement: 

Statement:
The Gingham Wearer has won the most recent cycle of Ackanomic.

Initiator's Reasoning:
I can't really see it, but I might as well give it a go. It won't hurt to
try. On the fourth of April I posted a message containing the following text:

"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."

I was indeed at the museum and so if I managed to create the trinket then I
donated it to the museum, which would raise my benefactor value to A$5000.
According to rule 850, this would cause me to win. I very much doubt I had
enough money to create the trinket but you never know, I've been wrong
before. If it is possible then it's probably something to do with whatever
isn't explicitly disallowed is allowed (rule 101).

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 550 (Hubert)

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck is deadbeat. The Praetor is also the initiator so this goes
> to Hubert.

I decline judgment on CFJ 550.  For real this time.

- -Hubert

Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have. 

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: silly actions

> >This points out a wee flaw in our present retraction rules.  If someone's
> >goal (as mine is) is to prevent an officer from exercising a particular
> >privelege of eir office, that someone can do so indefinitely at the cost
> >of one point per three days.

> 	It might (depending on the judge) qualify as being annoying.

Another retraction and I would give 4:1 on an Annoying verdict going
through...

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:33:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: actions

> > > I am filing an IP against Alfvaen, with intent to remove him from the
> > > Office of Praetor.
> > 
> > I vote against this impeachment.
> > 
> Whereas I am voting in favor of it.

For symmetry's sake I will also vote for this Impeachment. It's getting
old, but it may still be amusing...

Koxvolio

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 20:55:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: actions

 I vote against this impeachment.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Phoebe

Since I believe that Rule 909 allows non-active(but still voting)players
to be selected, I have thus determined that Koxvolio has found Phoebe's
Matchbox.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Indigo Girls
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
'Shh.  Admire the majesty of those stone pointy things.'

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:04:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Some notices (was: Swift Justice?)

> All right, I'm starting to feel a bit paranoid here. EVERY SINGLE
> winter cap award has been because of me. And it's not as if I generate
> that much of the game's email, either, even including my official
> stuff. Is just because I have one of the most sparkling personalities
> in the game? the coy way I sometimes sign my emails with a single
> initial? or are people just trying to flatter me? (Now I can't wait to
> see who's going to get a winter cap from *this* missive....)

No, I think it's just that your name is a word found in the dictionary.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Indigo Girls
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
After things go from bad to worse the cycle repeats.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka CFCJ 158 (FALSE)

> Judge's Comments:
> So, was e on vacation?  E would only not be on vacation if the message
> mentioned in the Caped Crusader's reasoning did in fact put Hoover 2300 on
> vacation.  So, did it?  

> Rule 255 says that a player shall be considered "on vacation" when he or
> she makes a public request that he or she desires to go on vacation.
> It does not say what kind of vacation must be taken.  "Vacation from
> myself" is still a type of vacation.  I think that it is reasonable to say
> that "I take a vacation" is a public request of desire to go on vacation.
> Game custom has interpreted it as such in the past when people have said
> that they would "go on vacation, estimated duration ....".  The "public
> request to desire" bit is merely a long-winded way of saying "must say
> so".

> As the rules only require the player to indicate eir desire to "go on
> vacation", and this is not specifically vacation from any entity, I find
> that a "vacation from myself" is equivalent to a "vacation from
> Ackanomic".

My only quibble here is that the message was posted on acka-research,
but is going on Vacation does not require a public action per se, then
it might have worked.  I'm willing to let the decision stand, and will
consider Hoover 2300 to have gone on Vacation as of that message.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Jann Arden:I Would Die For You
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
They laughed when I said I wanted to be a comedian.  They're not laughing now.

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

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 23:56:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Various judicial things (was: Resorting To Bribery)

> Finally! We have two cortexes. Having just looked over the rules for this I
> have realised I probably ought to have specified which cortex any appealed
> judgements went to. Any appeals since the passage of Guy Fawkes' Cortex
> proposal have gone to the Cortex comprising breadbox and ThinMan.

I think we could assume that...

> Also (since I only need to judge another 6 CFJs to get a bronze torch) I am
> taking possession of the purple robe of justice paying A$227 as I do so.

Actually, you only needed to pay A$212 for it.  But I think your phrasing
results in your paying an extra A$15 to the Treasury anyway.  :-)  The
price listed for the PRJ on the PE page is not the price last paid for it,
but the price that one will need to pay to get it.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Expose:Exposure
Current Book--Sean Stewart:The Night Watch
Martin J. Hixeypozer quickly began his first word.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #88
******************************